Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


V- 


» 


^AoVfS.y^b 


wwv 


(Xy  /Vl<ya*  <Vf 

\VV>  , 

SS  , ^umwo^U  . 

^ A\  §UvyfcoV<^ , 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/problemofhumanliOOhall 


LIBRARY 
OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


DARWIN. 


HUXLEY. 


HELMHOLTZ. 


TYNDALL. 


HAECKEL 


MAYER 


THE 


PROBLEM  OF  HUMAN  LIFE: 

EMBRACING 

“THE  EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND” 

AND 

“EVOLUTION  EVOLVED.” 

WITH 

A Review  of  the  Six  Great  Modern  Scientists , 


Darwin,  Huxley,  Tyndall,  Haeckel, 
Helmholtz,  and  Mayer. 


BY  WILFORD. 


NEW  YORK: 

)la  ; l HALL  & CO.,  PUBLISHERS, 
234  Broadway, 

MDCCCLXXVIII. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1877,  by 
HALL  & CO., 

in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington.  D.C. 


PREFACE 


If  one  object  more  than  any  other  has  exercised  a controlling  influence  over  my 
thoughts  and  motives  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  it  has  been  to  throw,  if  possible, 
some  new  light  from  a philosophical  and  scientific  standpoint  upon  the  problem  of 
man’s  conscious  and  substantial  existence  beyond  the  present  life. 

Aware  of  the  almost  numberless  books  which  have  appeared  from  time  to  time 
during  the  last  hundred  years  with  this  object  partially  or  wholly  in  view,  I still  could 
not  help  feeling  that  the  subject  had  not  yet  become  exhausted.  The  impression 
seemed  to  fasten  itself  upon  me  that  whether  or  not  I should  succeed  in  finding  a single 
grain  of  additional  golden  truth,  there  nevertheless  remained  hidden  beneath  the  scoria 
and  rubble  of  the  scientific  investigations  which  are  now  agitating  the  minds  of  ad- 
vanced thinkers,  undreamt-of  lodes  of  precious  evidence,  favoring,  if  not  absolutely 
demonstrating,  a future  state  of  being, — -while  in  no  department  of  philosophical  or 
biological  research  were  such  stores  of  evidence  likely  to  be  discovered  so  richly  de- 
posited as  in  that  which  includes  the  great  and  complicated  problems  raised  by 
Modern  Evolution. 

It  is  a fact  which  thoughtful  minds  can  not  fail  to  recognize,  that  no  philosophical 
theory  in  any  way  related  to  man’s  origin  or  destiny,  or  which  in  any  degree  involves 
man  as  a sentient  and  intellectual  being,  has  ever  so  suddenly  sprung  into  popular 
favor  or  taken  such  general  possession  of  all  classes  of  scientific  thinkers  as  this 
.modern  crusade  against  religion  popularly  known  as  Darwinism. 

I therefore  felt,  after  years  of  reading  and  thoughtful  study  and  after  carefully 
considering  the  true  basis  on  which  this  theory  rests,  that  no  line  of  philosophical, 
metaphysical,  or  physiological  discussion,  could  possibly  furnish  so  varied  an  oppor- 
tunity as  this  for  directly  and  indirectly  unfolding  any  new  ideas  I might  have  hit  upon 
during  my  investigations  bearing  on  this  question  of  all  questions — Are  we  destined  to 
live  after  this  earthly  pilgrimage  is  ended,  or  is  conscious  existence  eternally  blotted 
out  at  death? 

Whatever  scientific  or  philosophical  discussions,  therefore,  may  be  found  incident- 
■■  ally  woven  into  this  book,  they  will  prove  to  have  an  indirect  if  not  a direct  bearing  on 
this  unparalleled  problem  of  man’s  perpetual  existence.  Many  of  the  subjects  intro- 
duced and  much  of  the  reasoning  concerning  them  will  no  doubt  at  first  strike  the 
reader  as  irrelevant  to  this  central  and  paramount  question  of  a future  life;  yet  still,  if 

944308 


IV 


Preface. 


the  arguments  are  followed  out  to  their  legitimate  aim  and  culmination,  they  will  be 
seen  to  tend  toward  the  predominant  thought  that  all  things  in  Nature  which  exist 
or  can  form  the  basis  of  a concept  are  really  substantial  entities,  whether  they  are 
the  so-called  principles  or  forces  of  Nature  or  the  atoms  of  corporeal  bodies,  even 
extending  to  the  lije  and  mental  powers  of  every  sentient  organism,  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest.  And  since  science  has  determined  that  no  substance  in  the  universe 
can  be  annihilated,  there  must  therefore  be  deduced  a scientific  basis  for  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  if  the  life  and  mind  should  be  conclusively  shown  to  be  sub- 
stantial entities. 

It  matters  not,  therefore,  what  analogical  questions  or  facts  of  science  may  come 
before  the  reader  in  the  preliminary  chapters  of  this  book,  such  as  those  relating 
to  the  substantial  or  entitative  nature  of  Sound,  Light,  Heat,  Gravitation,  Electricity, 
Magnetism,  Odor,  Air,  &c.,  they  have  one  intrinsic  and  paramount  object  constantly 
in  view,  and  that  is,  to  insensibly  but  surely  prepare  the  way  for  an  intelligent  con- 
viction in  the  mind  of  the  reader  that  the  present  life  can  not,  in  the  very  nature 
and  fitness  of  things,  be  all  there  is  of  us  or  for  us. 

In  view  of  this  matchless  consummation,  I now  venture  the  assertion  that  the  reader 
will  find,  ere  he  finishes  this  volume,  numerous  scientific  proofs  which  may  be  fairly 
classed  as  demonstrative,  showing  that  the  life  and  mental  powers  are  as  really  sub- 
stantial entities,  though  intangible  to  the  physical  senses,  as  are  the  blood,  bone, 
and  muscle,  constituting  our  corporeal  organisms. 

A writer  in  the  North  American  Review  (Thomas  Hitchcock),  after  showing  the 
entire  reasonableness  of  the  substantial  nature  of  the  soul,  calls  upon  scientists  for 
the  physiological  and  psychological  facts  which  shall  demonstrate  it,  and  truly  adds: 
“Certainly,  the  achievements  of  science,  of  which  we  boast  so  much,  are  worth  but 
little  if  they  can  not  aid  us  to  solve  this  problem.”  The  facts  thus  called  for  are  to 
be  found  in  this  volume,  though  they  were  written  and  in  type  months  before  the 
article  referred  to  appeared  in  the  Review. 

For  many  years  I have  had  incessantly  before  me,  as  the  crowning  ambition  and 
culminating  triumph  of  my  earthly  existence,  this  one  superlative  achievement, 
namely,  to  add  a few  rationally  scientific  reasons,  hitherto  undiscovered,  which  should 
go  to  render  a future  conscious  state  of  being  for  man  clearly  probable,  aside  from 
and  in  addition  to  theological  considerations,  and  thus  bring  the  certitude  of  immor- 
tality so  far  into  accord  with  the  settled  principles  of  philosophy  and  science  making 
it  so  harmonious  and  consistent  with  the  current  modes  of  thought  as  to  command 
the  attention  and  respect  of  advanced  thinkers  and  investigators  in  whatever  depart- 
ment of  scientific  research. 

To  accomplish  so  grand  a work  as  this,  I saw  plainly  that,  first  of  all,  the  complete 


y 


Preface. 

i 

overthrow  of  evolution,  by  the  destruction  of  the  main  arguments  on  which  it  rests, 
had  become  an  absolute  necessity;  for  so  long  as  naturalists  can  triumphantly  point 
to  one  of  their  leading  scientific  facts  or  physiological  phenomena  which  has  not  been 
fairly  wrenched  from  the  grasp  of  evolution,  so  long  will  all  scientific  evidence  of 
man's  intrinsic  susceptibility  of  and  primordial  adaptivity  to  an  immortal  state  of 
being  have  with  them  but  the  weight  of  a provisional  hypothesis. 

Prior,  however,  to  undertaking  the  task  of  breaking  through  the  entrenched  works 
of  the  evolutionist,  and  in  order  to  prepare  the  reader  for  placing  the  proper  estimate 
upon  these  so-called  scientific  theories  which  assume  to  overthrow  religion, — such, 
for  example,  as  Mr.  Darwin’s  doctrine  of  man’s  development  from  the  monkey, — 
I resolved,  as  an  example  of  what  might  be  expected  in  the  future,  to  attempt  the 
overthrow  of  one  of  the  universally  accepted  theories  of  science, — a theory  which 
has  never  been  called  in  question  by  any  writer  on  the  subject,  and  one  which  is 
considered  to-day  by  all  scientists  as  firmly  established  as  the  Copernican  Theory 
of  Astronomy,  or  as  little  to  be  doubted  as  the  law  of  gravitation,  namely,  the  Wave- 
Theory  of  Sound,  out  of  which  has  been  developed  the  Undulatory  Theory  of  Light 
and  the  more  recently  constructed  theory  of  Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion. 

In  this  seemingly  preposterous  and  hazardous  attempt  I was  necessarily  compelled 
to  undertake  the  additional  task  of  reviewing  no  less  an  authority  than  Professor 
Tyndall  (the  ablest  and  most  popular  exponent  of  the  sound-theory  now  living), 
and  of  thus  demonstrating  the  complete  unreliability  and  defenselessness  of  the 
scientific  opinions  and  statements  of  one  of  the  most  aggressive  advocates  of  modem 
evolution,  even  when  treating  on  the  simplest  facts  of  science  and  making  the  most 
ordinary  philosophical  deductions. 

If  I have  succeeded  in  this  attempt,  and  if  the  wave-theory  of  sound  has  had 
to  succumb  fairly  to  the  arguments  brought  against  it,  in  defiance  of  the  supposed 
facts  and  demonstrations  published  to  the  world  by  this  highest  living  authority,  then 
the  reader  may  justly  discount  evolution  in  advance  as  having  no  sort  of  claim  on 
the  belief  of  mankind  based  on  the  ground  of  scientific  authority. 

I had,  moreover,  another  and  distinct  object  in  view  in  attempting  to  break  down 
and  revolutionize  the  current  sound-theory,  as  the  reader  will  frequently  observe 
coming  to  the  surface,  and  that  was  this:  If  the  wave-theory  of  sound  is  really  a 
fallacy  in  science,  then  nothing  remains  to  be  accepted  but  the  hypothesis  that  sound 
consists  of  corpuscular  emissions  and  is  therefore  a substantial  entity,  as  much  so  as 
is  air  or  odor;  and  if  sound  is  thus  absolutely  proved  to  be  a substance,  there  can 
not  be  the  shadow  of  a scientific  objection  raised  against  the  substantial  or  entitative 
nature  of  life  and  the  mental  powers. 

In  that  portion  of  this  work  relating  directly  to  the  review  of  Mr.  Darwin's 


VI 


Preface. 


theory  of  transmutation,  I have  sought  primarily  to  present  the  arguments  in  oppo- 
sition to  evolution,  spontaneous  generation,  &c.,  in  such  concise  and  simple  language 
as  to  make  every  question  discussed  at  once  understood  by  the  most  ordinary  reader. 
In  seeking  to  avoid  circumlocution,  I may  have  sometimes  gone  to  the  extreme  the 
other  way;  and  in  aiming  at  directness  of  results  by  dealing  with  and  massing  solid 
and  naked  facts,  may  have  occasionally  hurled  too  abruptly  the  monstrous  incon- 
sistencies of  the  doctrine  into  the  teeth  of  evolution.  Whatever  apparent  want  of 
courtesy  certain  passages  may  have  at  times  betrayed,  nothing  but  the  kindest  of 
feelings  and  highest  personal  and  professional  regard  for  the  great  authors  I have 
had  occasion  to  review,  coupled  with  an  earnest  desire  to  rivet  the  truth  and  force 
of  my  arguments  upon  the  memory  of  the  reader,  has  had  the  slightest  influence 
in  dictating  the  tone  of  such  occasional  paragraphs. 

I have  therefore  made  it  my  leading  object  to  conduct  the  discussion  and  con- 
dense the  arguments  against  the  theory  of  man’s  descent  by  transmutation  from 
lower  animals  in  such  a manner  that  the  most  superficial  reader  shall  hereafter  have 
the  weapons  at  hand  to  meet  with  irresistible  effect  even  the  acknowledged  cham- 
pions of  the  system,  if  need  be,  and  thus  put  a check  to  its  progress  where  most 
required. 

With  what  success  the  following  pages  shall  have  carried  out  this  programme, 
and  to  what  extent  they  may  in  the  future  accomplish  the  result  intimated,  the 
reader  must  judge  after  he  has  perused  the  volume.  It  need  only  be  added  that 
the  work  is  frankly  offered  to  the  public  as  an  imperfect  and  humble  contribution 
to  what  is  believed  to  be  the  cause  of  true  scientific  knowledge,  by 

The  Author. 

New  York,  June  i,  1877. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 

In  this  edition  Chapters  V.  and  VI.,  on  The  Nature  of  Sound,  have  been  wholly 
re-written.  The  investigation  was  of  such  a revolutionary  character,  and  involved 
so  many  questions  of  science  considered  thoroughly  established,  that  it  was  found 
impossible  for  the  writer  to  properly  discuss  the  old  theory  of  sound,  or  present  the 
claims  of  the  new  hypothesis,  without  further  consideration  than  he  was  able  to  give 
the  subject  when  first  preparing  the  work.  He  also  found  that,  in  the  hurry,  he  had 
committed  a few  errors  which  were  necessary  to  be  corrected,  and  had  written  some 
things  which  were  deemed  advisable  to  be  left  out  of  the  work. 

The  Evolution  of  Sound,  as  thus  revised,  is  now  dedicated  to  the  scientific 
investigators  of  Europe  and  America,  with  the  kindest  wishes  of 

New  York,  June  1,  1878. 


The  Author. 


PUBLISHERS’  NOTICE 


The  publishers  of  this  volume  deem  it  necessary  to  add  a few  words  of  explanation 
in  regard  to  the  rhythmical  measure  in  which  a portion  of  the  book  is  written. 

The  entire  manuscript  was  originally  prepared  in  the  octosyllabic  meter  of 
“ Kalawala the  great  national  epic  poem  of  Finland,  which  has  been  read  and  sung 
for  hundreds  of  years  by  that  obscure  but  cultivated  and  remarkable  people.  The 
author  seems  to  have  become  fascinated  with  that  peculiar  undulatory  movement, 
and  evidently  found  no  difficulty  in  employing  it  for  the  most  critical  and  elaborate 
scientific  and  philosophical  argumentation.  Yet,  it  seems  less  appropriate  in  this 
class  of  discussion  than  plain  and  simple  prose. 

It  was  therefore  deemed  advisable  that  the  greater  portion  of  the  book  should 
be  reproduced  in  regular  prose,  lest  the  singularity  of  the  form  should,  with  many 
readers,  detract  from  the  value  and  force  of  the  arguments,  which  were  considered 
of  too  much  importance  to  suffer  the  least  obscuration.  Accordingly,  the  author  has 
hurriedly  rewritten  the  most  of  the  work,  with  scarcely  time  to  revise  the  manuscript 
as  the  composition  proceeded. 

As  an  example  of  the  undulatory,  prose-like  character  of  this  octosyllabic  rhythm, 
we  give  below  a brief  extract  with  the  metrical  lines  ignored,  but  otherwise  verbatim 
et  literatim : — 

[Extract  from  page  45.] 

’ There  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom  of  the  will,  these  thinkers  tell  us,  notwithstanding  man  is 
conscious  that  he  does  possess  volition ; and,  in  ordinary  matters,  can  select  from  groups  of  motives 
as  determined  on  by  judgment, — can  elect  his  course  of  action  from  two  courses  set  before  him,  viewing 
one  as  right  and  proper  and  the  other  wrong  and  sinful.  If  we  can  not  help  our  actions,  or  control  our 
course  of  conduct, — if  we  really  are  the  puppets  of  some  overruling  motive, — why  this  inbred  lie  of 
conscience,  with  its  casuistic  promptings — with  its  punitory  horrors — dogging  us  for  every  error, — fright- 
ing us  with  false  arraignments, — when,  in  fact,  we  are  but  victims  of  resistless  circumstances,  carried 
by  the  strongest  motive  where  the  upas-surcharged  cyclone  of  fatality  would  drive  us?  If  our  wills  are 
but  chimeras,  and  volition  but  a fancy, — if  we  can  not  make  selection  only  as  compelled  to  make  it, — 
if  we  can  not  choose  from  objects  only  as  manipulated  by  primordial  laws  of  being  blindly  chaining 


Yin 


Publishers'  Notice. 


will  to  motive, — why  should  primal  laws  of  Nature  stamp  the  will  with  false  impressions  till  the  cheat 
is  all-pervading  and  all  minds  accept  the  idea  that  we  do  decide  by  choosing  and  determine  by  volition, 
and  that  we  do  really  govern  and  exert  controlling  power  over  various  groups  of  motives  by  our 
voluntary  actions?” 

[The  above  as  it  occurs  in  metrical  form.'] 


“There  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom 
Of  the  will,  these  thinkers  tell  us, 
Notwithstanding  man  is  conscious 
That  he  does  possess  volition ; 

And,  in  ordinary  matters, 

Can  select  from  groups  of  motives 
As  determined  on  by  judgment, — 

Can  elect  his  course  of  action 
F rom  two  courses  set  before  him, 
Viewing  one  as  right  and  proper 
And  the  other  wrong  and  sinful. 

If  we  can  not  help  our  actions, 

Or  control  our  course  of  conduct,— 

If  we  really  are  the  puppets 
Of  some  overruling  motive, — 

Why  this  inbred  lie  of  conscience, 

With  its  casuistic  promptings — 

With  its  punitory  horrors — 

Dogging  us  for  every  error, — 

Frighting  us  with  false  arraignments, — 
When,  in  fact,  we  are  but  victims 
Of  resistless  circumstances, 


Carried  by  the  strongest  motive 
Where  the  upas-surcharged  cyclone 
Of  fatality  would  drive  us? 

If  our  wills  are  but  chimeras, 

And  volition  but  a fancy, — 

If  we  can  not  make  selection 
Only  as  compelled  to  make  it, — 

If  we  can  not  choose  from  objects 
Only  as  manipulated 
By  primordial  laws  of  being 
Blindly  chaining  will  to  motive, — 
Why  should  primal  laws  of  Nature 
Stamp  the  will  with  false  impressions 
Till  the  cheat  is  all-pervading 
And  all  minds  accept  the  idea 
That  we  do  decide  by  choosing 
And  determine  by  volition, 

And  that  we  do  really  govern 
And  exert  controlling  power 
Over  various  groups  of  motives 
By  our  voluntary  actions?” 


It  is  believed,  or  at  least  hoped,  that  this  variety  of  style  in  which  the  discussion 
is  conducted,  instead  of  proving  detrimental,  will,  from  its  novelty  and  diversity,  add 
to  the  interest  of  the  work, — while  readers  who  may  not  fancy  metrical  argument 
have  an  abundant  remedy  in  the  prose  chapters  of  the  book,  which  largely  pre- 
dominate. 


New  York,  June  i,  1878. 


HALL  & CO.,  Publishers. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION  — EVOLUTION.—  DARWINISM. 

The  Progress  of  Modem  Evolution. — Darwin  Justly  Entitled  to  its  Honor. — Others  who  have 
Previously  Suggested  the  Theory. — The  System  Briefly  Stated. — All  Organized  Beings  Claimed  to 
have  been  Developed  from  One  ora  Few  Simple  Forms. — Facts  and  Arguments  Supposed  to  Favor 
Evolution. — Partial  Resemblance  of  all  Animals,  including  Man. — Their  Similar  Anatomical  Struc- 
tures.— A Graduated  Scale  of  Being. — The  Geologic  Record. — A Graduation  of  Paleontologic  Remains 
from  the  Lower  Forms  of  Life  toward  the  Higher,  and  from  the  Lower  Strata  toward  the  Higher. — 
Embryology,  Rudimentary  Organs,  and  Reversionary  Action,  the  Strongest  Arguments  in  Favor  of  the 
Doctrine. — Hitherto  Unexplained  by  Opponents  of  Darwin. — Evidence  from  the  Breeder  and  Fancier. 
Methodical  Selection  claimed  to  be  the  same  as  Natural  Selection. — Wonderful  Changes  in  the  Forms 
of  Pigeons,  Cattle,  Sheep,  &c. — Necessity  of  Meeting  Every  Fact  and  Deduction  of  Darwin. — Ignoring 
or  Evading  the  Facts  Fatal. — Many  Clergymen,  especially  in  England,  Surrendering  to  Evolution. — 
The  Reason  Why. — The  Utter  Incompatibility  of  the  Theory  with  Religion  or  Theism. — The  Great 
Ability  and  Candor  of  the  Advocates  of  the  Theory  held  to  be  Presumptive  of  its  Truth. 


CHAPTER  II. 

EVOLUTION.—  PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS. 

Darwin’s  Views  of  Great  Importance. — Other  Writers  More  Radical,  especially  on  the  Origin  of 
First  Forms. — Haeckel’s  Views  of  Spontaneous  Generation  stated. — Other  Considerations  before  Re- 
viewing Haeckel. — Was  there  a God  to  have  Created  the  First  Forms,  as  Supposed  by  Darwin? — Is  it 
Reasonable  to  deny  His  Existence? — How  came  Laws  of  Nature  without  a Lawgiver? — Matter  Shaped 
by  Mind,  and  Subservient  to  it. — Mind  Originated  out  of  Nothing,  according  to  Haeckel  and  Atheists. 
— Its  Absurdity  Demonstrated. — An  Intelligent  First  Cause  a Necessity. — If  Man  could  Evolve  from 
a Worm  so  might  a God. — God’s  Existence  Consonant  with  Other  Things  Eternal,  such  as  Space, 
Time,  Matter,  &c. — Millions  of  Mysteries  all  around  us  Solved  by  Admitting  One  Great  Mystery. — 
As  Something  must  be  Inexplicable,  why  not  Admit  a God,  which  Solves  all  Minor  Problems? — Spirit, 
Mind,  Will,  and  Instinct,  Substantial  Entities. 


X 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


CHAPTER  III. 

PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS. — (Continued.) 

The  Problem  of  Motives  and  Surrounding  Circumstances  Controlling  the  Will. — Its  Fatalistic 
Tendency  Apparent,  Making  Men  but  Puppets. — Its  Absurdity  Shown  in  its  Bearing  and  Fruits. — 
Illustrations  Suggested,  Showing  the  Ruinous  Results  which  would  Follow. — Without  Freedom  of 
Choice  as  between  Motives,  all  Distinction  between  Right  and  Wrong  Obliterated. — The  End  Pre- 
dicted, Should  the  Doctrine  be  Universally  Taught  and  Practiced. — Recurring  to  the  Probable  Origin 
of  Being. — Life  Traced  Back  to  the  Invisible  Fountain  of  Causation. — Personal  and  Substantial  Ego 
Must  Come  from  a Substantial  Fountain  of  Life  and  Mentality. — All  Matter  Being  Indestructible, 
so  all  Life  and  Mind. — God  the  Original  Fountain,  to  which  all  Life  and  Mind  will  return. — A New 
Theory  of  the  Relation  between  Men  and  Lower  Animals  Foreshadowed. — The  Substantial  Nature 
of  all  the  Forces,  as  well  as  of  Mind  and  Life. — Magnetic  Fluid  a Real  Substance,  or  Attenuated 
Matter. — Science  an  Uncertain  Basis  for  Denying  the  Existence  of  God  and  the  Substantial  Entity 
of  the  Spirit. — No  Reasonable  Excuse  for  Doubting  the  Existence  of  a God  or  a Future  Life. — 
Materialism  Defined. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT,  GRAVITATION,  ETC. 

Light  Shown  to  be  Substantial  Emissions. — The  Undulatory  Theory  Repudiated  as  Utterly  Falla- 
cious.— Conclusive  Reasons  why  it  can  not  be  True. — Luminiferous  Ether  a Pure  Invention,  without 
any  Foundation  or  Use  in  Nature  or  Science. — The  Absurdities  of  the  Theory  Pointed  Out. — It  had 
its  Origin  in  the  False  Notion  of  Sound-Waves. — The  two  Current  Theories  of  Sound  and  Light  must 
Necessarily  Stand  or  Fall  Together. — The  Reasonableness  of  Light  as  Substantial  Emissions  Shown 
from  the  Received  Views  Concerning  Ether. — The  Wonderful  Action  of  Odor  as  an  Illustration. — Facts 
which  Science  never  could  have  Discovered  nor  can  Explain. — A Beautiful  Analogy  of  Spirit-Substance 
and  Soul-Entity. — An  Improvement  on  the  old  Emission-Theory,  Obviating  the  former  Objections  to  it. 
— Light  Generated  the  same  as  Sound  by  Vibratory  Motion,  and  Radiated  in  Pulses  or  Discharges. — 
Every  Phenomenon  Explicable  by  the  Undulatory  Theory  can  be  Equally  Solved  by  the  Hypothesis 
/if  Substantial  Discharges. — Gravitation  an  Essentially  Substantial  Entity. — Sir  Isaac  Newton’s  Ad- 
missions.— The  Interaction  and  Correlation  of  the  so-called  Forces  and  Modes  of  Motion  show  them 
to  be  Attenuated  Matter. — Air  the  Connecting  Link  between  the  Grosser  and  Rarer  Substances  in 
Nature. — The  Atmosphere  should  Obviate  all  Difficulty  in  Believing  in  the  Substantial  Nature  of  the 
Forces,  and  even  of  Mind  and  Life. 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


xi 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND.— REVIEW  OF  PROFESSORS  TYNDALL,  HELM- 
HOLTZ, AND  MAYER. 

The  Wave-Theory  of  Sound  Assailed. — A New  Hypothesis  of  Substantial  Sonorous  Corpuscles 
Proposed. — The  Difference  between  the  two  Hypotheses  Pointed  Out. — No  Middle  Ground  is  Possible 
between  the  two. — Hence,  if  Wave-Motion  Breaks  Down  the  Corpuscular  Hypothesis  must  be  Admitted. 
— All  Phenomena  of  Sound  claimed  by  the  Writer  to  be  Explicable  on  the  basis  of  Substantial  Pulses. — 
Several  Illustrations  Given. — Sympathetic  Vibration  Explained. — Resonance  Proved  to  be  Utterly 
Inexplicable  by  the  Wave-Theory. — Many  Illustrations  Brought  to  Bear. — The  Superficiality  of  Physi- 
cists Pointed  Out.—  Laughable  Illustrations  from  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz. — Resonance  Explained. — 
The  True  Law  of  Sound-Generation  given  for  the  first  time. — Magazine  Explosions  Considered,  and 
Turned  Against  the  Wave-Theory. — Professor  Mayer’s  Unphilosophical  Reasoning  Reviewed. — The 
Falling  Pitch  of  a Locomotive-Whistle  on  Passing  a Station  Considered. — Other  Objections  Answered. 
— Reflection  and  Convergence  of  Sound  Explained. — “Condensations  and  Rarefactions”  shown  to  be 
Fatal  to  the  Wave-Theory. — The  Illustration  of  the  Stridulation  of  a Locust  shown  to  be  Disastrous 
to  the  Wave-Hypothesis  in  many  ways. — Professor  Mayer’s  Fatal  Admissions. — A Locust  must  exert 
Millions  of  Tons  of  Mechanical  Force  by  the  Motion  of  its  Legs  if  the  Wave-Theory  is  true. — Shown 
in  Numerous  Ways. — A Serious  Scientific  Mistake  Perpetrated  by  Professor  Tyndall. — The  Propaga- 
tion of  Sound  by  Means  of  Sonorous  Corpuscles  Explained  and  Contrasted  with  Wave-Motion. — The 
Discrepancy  Discovered  by  Newton  of  174  feet  a Second  in  Sound-Velocity  Fatal  to  the  Theory. — 
Laplace’s  Solution  Proved  Fallacious. — The  Law  of  Sound-Velocity,  or  the  Relation  of  Density  to 
Elasticity,  Examined. — Amusing  Self-Contradictions  of  Professor  Tyndall. — Why  has  the  Current 
Theory  of  Sound,  if  False,  not  been  Assailed  before? — An  Overwhelming  Argument  against  the  Theory 
drawn  from  the  Supposition  of  Tympanic  Vibration. — Over-Tones,  Resultant  Tones,  &c.,  Examined. — 
Helmholtz’s  Analysis  of  the  Ear  Reviewed. — His  Numerous  Self-Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies 
Pointed  Out. — Beautiful  Analogies  in  Nature  favorable  to  the  Corpuscular  Hypothesis. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND.— REVIEW  OF  PROFESSORS  TYNDALL,  HELM- 
HOLTZ, AND  MAYER. — (Continued!) 

A New  Class  of  Arguments  Introduced. — The  Impossibility  of  Wave-Motion  in  Solids,  such  as 
Rock,  Iron,  &c.,  demonstrated. — “Condensations  and  Rarefactions,”  the  only  Sound-Waves  claimed 
by  Physicists,  an  Absurdity  when  applied  to  Rock  or  Iron. — The  Similarity  of  Water-Waves  and  Sound- 


X1L 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


Waves  admiluxi  c,  . iv. deists.—' This  Fact  alone  Fatal  to  the  Wave-Theory.— Many  Reasons  given 
for  it. — The  Uniform  Ratio  of  Amplitude  to  Wave-Length  about  x to  io  in  all  True  Waves. — Absence 
of  Amplitude  in  Iron  Sound-Waves  demonstrated,  while  Certain  Waves  are  Proved  to  be  476  feet  long. 
— Infinite  Difficulties  in  the  Way  of  the  Theory.— The  Absence  of  Amplitude  confirms  the  Corpuscular 
View  that  Sound  passes  in  Straight  Lines. — Fatal  Admissions  by  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz. — 
A Condensed  Account  of  an  Interesting  Investigation  of  the  Wave-Theory  with  a Scientific  Friend. — 
Numerous  Objections  Raised  and  Answered. — The  Wind  Proved  to  have  no  Effect  on  Sound. — The 
Evidence  of  the  Signal-Service. — A Strong  Argument  against  the  Wave-Theory,  and  in  Favor  of  Cor- 
puscular Emanations. — Professor  Tyndall’s  Illustrations  of  a Row  of  Boys  and  a Row  of  Glass  Balls 
Exploded. — Thysicists  shown  to  be  Dishonest  without  intending  it. — Professor  Tyndall’s  Illustration 
of  the  Tin  Tube  and  the  Lighted  Candle  Annihilated. — His  Illustration  of  the  Resonant  Glass  Jar  and 
the  Quarter  Wave-Length  Plypolhesis  Scathingly  Reviewed. — Another  Illustration,  showing  that 
sounding  two  Forks  half  a Wave-Length  apart  will  produce  Interference,  Reviewed  and  Exposed. — No 
Foundation  in  Truth  for  the  Assumption. — The  Explanation  of  the  Interference  of  the  Double  Siren, 
as  given  by  Physicists,  Explained  Away. — No  Interference  about  it. — A Serious  and  Fatal  Misappre- 
hension.— An  Unmistakable  Test  Proposed  to  Professor  Helmholtz  by  which  to  Determine  the  Whole 
Question. — -The  Wave-Theory  Self-Contradictory  and  Self-Neutralizing. — Musical  Beats  Explained 
Scientifically. — Their  Production  by  Interfering  Air-Waves  Shown  to  be  Impossible. — The  Konig  In- 
strument for  Dividing  a Stream  of  Sound  into  Two  Branches  Explained. — Professor  Tyndall’s  State- 
ments Positively  Denied. — His  Contradictions,  Inconsistencies,  and  Numerous  Scientific  Errors  Pointed 
Out. — A Final  Overwhelming  Argument  based  on  the  Nature  of  Wave-Motion  which  Alone  Breaks 
Down  the  Current  Theory. — Note  on  the  Supposed  Sympathetic  Vibration  of  the  Antennse  of  the 
Mosquito. — An  Amusing  Exposition  of  Professor  Mayer’s  Hypothesis. — Addenda  to  Chapter  VI. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EVOLUTION.— SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION.— REVIEW  OF  PROFESSOR  HAECKEL. 

Statement  of  the  Hypothesis  as  Advanced  by  Professor  Haeckel. — It  Denies  all  Necessity  for  a 
Creator  in  the  Origin  of  Life  and  the  First  Organisms,  and  in  this  is  Opposed  to  Darwin. — Haeckel 
bases  the  Whole  Theory  of  Spontaneous  Generation  on  the  Monera,  as  the  Simplest  of  all  Organisms. — 
Ilis  Description  of  these  Creatures,  and  his  Reasons  for  Believing  that  they  Originated  by  Spontaneous 
Generation. — The  Assumption  Shown  to  be  Fallacious,  from  Various  Considerations. — A Bridgeless 
Hiatus  between  Living  Organisms  and  Anorgana. — Darwin  and  Huxley  both  Contradict  Haeckel. — 
All  Chemistry  and  all  Experience  deny  the  Spontaneous  Hypothesis. — Haeckel’s  Superficial  Views  of 
Science  Exposed. — The  Existence  of  Intelligent  Power  above  Nature  and  her  Laws  shown  to  be 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


xm 


Scientific. — Haeckel’s  own  Theory  of  Law  Unwillingly  Demonstrates  the  Existence  of  a God. — The 
Absurdity  of  Haeckel’s  Views  of  Monera  as  having  but  a Single  Substance,  and  as  being  Destitute  of 
Organs,  Scathingly  Exposed  and  Turned  Against  Him. — The  Highest  Authorities  Quoted  to  Show  his 
Ignorance  of  Science. — His  Spontaneous  Generation  Results  in  Overthrowing  the  Whole  Theory  of 
Evolution. — He  Flatly  Contradicts  his  own  Assumptions  as  to  the  Homogeneous  Structure  of  Monera. 
— Life  and  Mental  Powers  Illustrated  by  the  Supposed  Ether. — Why  not  God  be  Omnipresent  as  a 
Substantive  Existence  if  Ether  can  be  All-Pervading,  as  Science  teaches? — Chemists  can  Never  Produce 
Life  where  the  Germ  is  Wanting. — The  Belief  of  the  Ancients  that  Ticks,  Lice,  Weevils,  &c.,  came  by 
Spontaneity. — Monera  have  Shown  no  Change  of  Structure  for  Millions  of  Years,  and  hence  are  not 
likely  to  have  ever  Diverged. — Darwin  Arrayed  Against  Plaeckel  and  Against  the  Possible  Transmu- 
tation of  Monera. — The  Absurdity  of  Spontaneous  Generation  not  being  now  in  Operation  if  it  ever  was 
Possible. — Comparison  of  Darwin’s  and  Haeckel’s  Theories  of  Commencement  of  the  First  Forms. — 

4 

The  Contingencies  on  which  Man’s  Existence  Depended,  according  to  both  Theories. — Haeckel’s 
Confused  Ideas  of  Life. — The  Logical  Impossibility  of  Spontaneous  Generation. — No  Chance  in 
Nature. — Everything  Done  by  Law. — A Distinct  Refutation  of  Haeckel’s  Assumption. — His  Different 
Conditions  of  Life  in  the  Carbon  Age  Exposed  and  Turned  Against  Him. — An  Entirely  New  Theory 
of  the  Origin  of  Species  in  Opposition  to  Darwin  and  Haeckel. — Darwin’s  Transmutation  and  Haeckel’s 
Spontaneous  Generation  Thrown  into  the  Shade. — Conclusion  and  Summary. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EVOLUTION  EVOLVED.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED. 

Arguments  Stated  which  Evolutionists  regard  as  Unanswerable. — They  have  never  been  Met  or 
even  Stated  in  any  Review  of  Darwinism. — This  Fact  Thrown  Scathingly  into  the  Teeth  of  Opponents 
of  the  System  by  Haeckel  and  Other  Writers. — The  Author  Pledges  Himself  to  Skulk  no  Fact  nor 
Argument  Adduced  in  Support  of  Evolution. — A Fundamental  Principle  Underlying  all  these  Problems 
to  be  First  Established. — An  Absolute  Scientific  Demonstration  that  the  Life  and  Mental  Powers  of 
Every  Living  Creature  constitute  an  Intangible  yet  Substantial  Organism  as  Real  as  the  Anatomical 
Structure.  Darwins  Theory  of  Reversionary  Action,  as  one  of  his  Strongest  Classes  of  Facts,  Exam- 
ined.—A Terrible  Table  of  Figures  Arrayed  Against  Him. — The  Impossibility  of  Reversions  Positively 
Demonstrated.  The  Entire  Doctrine  of  Inheritance  Misunderstood. — Transmission  even  from  Father 
to  Son  through  Corporeal  Organism  an  Absolute  Impossibility.— With  the  Failure  of  Darwin’s  Idea  of 
Reversions,  Evolution  Necessarily  Breaks  Down. — Another  Demonstration  that  the  Life  and  Mind 
Constitute  a Substantial  Organism  within  the  Corporeal  Structure. — Transmission  and  Inheritance  of  an 
Acquired  Habit  among  Animals  Explained. — Darwin  Implores  an  Explanation,  However  Imperfect. — 


XIV 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


The  Great  Problems  and  Facts  of  Embryology  Examined.— They  are  Turned  Against  Evolutionists, 
and  their  Theory  Overthrown  by  them. — Haeckel’s  Plates  showing  the  Similar  Appearance  of  all  Em- 
bryos  Prove  Too  Much  for  the  Theory. — He  Destroys  Evolution  by  his  Efforts  to  Aid  it. — Darwin 
Proves  that  Man  Descended  from  Lower  Animals  by  the  Exact  Similarity  of  all  Ovules. — This  Fact 
Fatally  Turned  Against  Him.— Darwin’s  Provisional  Hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  and  Gemmules  shown 
to  be  Utterly  Impracticable  and  Absurd. — The  Author’s  New  Hypothesis,  by  which  the  Problems  of 
Embryology,  Reversions,  Monstrosities,  Rudimentary  Organs,  &c.,  may  be  Solved. — The  Only  Attempt 
at  Explanation  Ever  Made,  except  by  the  Theory  of  Descent  and  Transmutation. — The  New  Hypoth- 
esis Supported  and  Corroborated  by  Darwin’s  Assumptions. — The  Author’s  Hypothesis  Reasoned  Out 
and  Shown  to  be  a Rational  Solution  of  these  Hitherto  Unexplained  Facts  of  Embryology,  Reversions, 
&c. — Summary  of  the  Argument. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

EVOLUTION  EVOLVED.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED. — (Continued.) 

Rudimentary  Organs. — The  Most  Startling  Instances  of  Such  Structures  Adduced  by  Darwin  and 
Haeckel,  such  as  Upper  Front  Teeth  in  the  Embryonic  Calf  and  Whale,  and  Aborted  Leg-Bones  in 
the  Whale  and  Boa-Constrictor. — These  Rudiments  Claimed  by  all  Evolutionists  as  Positive  Proof  that 
such  Beings  Descended  from  Ancestors  having  these  Organs  in  a Perfect  State. — The  Author  Proposes 
in  the  Conclusion  of  this  Chapter  to  give  a Scientific  Explanation  of  these  Rudiments,  which  has  Never 
Before  Been  Attempted. — A Definition  of  Science  by  Huxley  and  Spencer. — The  Miraculous  Creation 
of  a Species  Demonstrated  to  be  Scientific  if  Shown  to  be  more  Probable  than  Transmutation. — Such  a 
Demonstration  Absolutely  Furnished  by  the  Testimony  of  Darwin  and  all  his  Followers. — The  Law  of 
Evolution  Explained  and  the  Word  Defined  by  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Spencer. — Rudimentary  Organs,  as 
the  Result  of  Physical  Transmutation  from  Ancestors  having  the  Organs  Perfect,  an  Utter  Impossibility 
from  the  Terminology  Employed. — The  Infinite  Absurdity  of  the  Assumption  Pointed  Out. — The  Theory 
of  Evolution  Turned  Fatally  Against  Itself,  and  the  Bovine  Genus  Demonstrated  to  have  been  Miracu- 
lously Created  by  the  Necessary  Positions  of  Evolutionists. — The  Probability  Shown  from  Evolution 
itself  that  beneath  the  Lowest  Silurian  Deposits  there  exist  Fossil  Remains  of  Fishes,  Reptiles,  Birds, 
Mammals,  and  even  Men. — Rudimentary  Organs  shown  to  be  the  Most  Conclusive  Evidence  of  the 
Fallacy  of  Darwin’s  Whole  Theory. — A Suggestion  to  Darwin  and  Haeckel  how  to  Easily  Dispense 
with  their  Annoying  Difficulty  of  Creation  and  Spontaneous  Generation,  according  to  the  Logic  of  Evo- 
j lution. — Each  one  of  the  Cases  referred  to  by  Darwin  and  Haeckel  taken  away  from  Evolution  by 
Piecemeal. — The  Utter  Impossibility  of  a Cow  losing  her  Teeth,  or  of  a Whale  or  Boa-Constrictor  losing 
its  Legs,  demonstrated. — The  Want  of  Shrewdness  and  Business  Tact  in  Evolutionists  shown. — I hey 
Literally  Throw  Away  their  Strongest  Arguments  by  a Childish  Mistake. — Eyeless  Cave-Rats  and 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


xv 


Fishes  Clearly  Accounted  For. — They  are  no  Help  to  Evolution. — The  Scientific  Hypothesis  Finally 
Explained  by  which  to  Account  for  Rudimentary  Organs. — Darwin’s  Confessed  and  Demonstrated 
Ignorance  of  the  Cause  of  Variations  Proved  from  Numerous  Passages. — The  Reason  only  Attributable 
to  his  Monistic  and  Purely  Physical  Views  of  Organic  Beings. — The  Cause  of  all  Variations  Simply  and 
Rationally  Explained. — Numerous  Circumstances  Adduced  Preparatory  to  the  Hypothesis. — The  Facts 
on  which  it  is  based  .Demonstrated  by  the  Highest  Authorities  on  Scientific  Breeding. — Several  Astound- 
ing Facts  Cited. — Jacob’s  Experiments  with  Laban's  Cattle  Corroborated. — It  has  taken  Scientists 
Thousands  of  Years  to  Catch  Up  with  the  Bible. — The  Hypothesis  Conclusively  Applied  to  the  Cases 
in  Hand. — The  True  Reason  Why  the  Brute  can  not  be  Immortal. — Summary  of  the  Argument. 


CHAPTER  X. 

EVOLUTION  EVOLVED.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED. — (Continued) 

The  Anatomical  Resemblance  of  all  Vertebrate  Animals  or.e  of  the  Strong  Supports  of  Evolution. — 
This  Fact  does  not  Favor  the  Theory  of  Descent,  but  is  Shown  to  be  Directly  Opposed  to  it. — The 
Very  Assumption  of  a Graduated  Scale  of  Structure  the  Death-Blow  of  Evolution. — Huxley’s  Book  — 
“Man’s  Place  in  Nature” — a Complete  Loss  of  Time  and  Labor. — He  Wastes  a Whole  Volume  on  the 
Partial  Resemblance  of  Men  and  Monkeys  in  their  Osseous  Structure,  when  there  were  Dozens  of  Char- 
acters and  Points  of  Resemblance  Exactly  Alike  which  he  might  have  used. — Creation  by  a Graduated 
Scale  of  General  Anatomy  Consistent  and  Rational. — Illustrated  by  Man’s  Greatest  Achievements. — 
If  the  Graduated  Resemblance  between  Members  of  a Sub-Kingdom — as  between  the  Vertebrates,  for 
example — proves  Evolution,  then  the  Breaks  between  Sub-Kingdoms  prove  Miraculous  Creation. — The 
Logic  of  Evolution  thus  Breaks  Down  by  its  own  Weight. — The  Acknowledged  Absence  of  all  Transi- 
tional Forms  a Clear  Disproof  of  Evolution  till  they  are  Produced. — Darwin  Repeatedly  Declares  that 
“Sudden  Leaps”  can  not  be  Taken  by  Natural  Selection. — Transmutation  thus  Rendered  Impossible 
by  Mr.  Darwin  Himself,  since  the  Differences  between  the  Nearest  Related  Species  constitute  such 
“Leaps.” — The  Great  Fossil  Lizards  of  Huxley,  as  Connecting  Links,  Examined. — The  Nearest 
Related  Species  shown  still  to  be  Great  and  Sudden  Leaps. — The  Archaeopteryx  no  sort  of  Proof  of 
Evolution. — Nature  Confirms  this  Distinction,  proving  Separate  Creations  by  the  Law  of  Sterility 
among  Different  Species. — The  Exploits  of  Breeders  and  Fanciers  Examined. — Man’s  Efforts  the 
Exact  Opposite  of  those  of  Nature. — They  Overthrow  the  Claims  of  Evolution  by  Producing  Opposite 
Results. — Huxley  Clearly  Refutes  Darwin’s  Theory. — His  own  Self-Destructive  Logic  Turned  Against 
Him. — Breeders  Acting  on  the  Principles  of  Nature  could  never  Change  a Feather  of  a Pigeon  in  a 
Million  Years. — A Conclusive  Proof  Given  from  Mr.  Darwin  Himself. — The  Great  Argument  based 
on  Paleontology  and  the  Geologic  Record  Examined. — It  is  Shown  to  Furnish  no  Proof  in  Favor  of 
Evolution,  but  Rather  to  Overthrow  it. — All  Fossil  Species  are  Found  at  their  Greatest  Perfection  when 
they  First  Appear  in  the  Strata. — The  Paleontologic  Remains  a Clear  Proof  of  Miraculous  Creation  of 
the  Succeeding  Forms. — A Merciless  Review  of  Professor  Huxley’s  Lectures  in  New  York. — He  is 
Shown  to  have  Abandoned  all  Proof  of  Evolution  in  the  Fossil  Remains  of  Animals  prior  to  the  Genesis 
of  Mammals. — His  Great  Argument  based  on  the  “History  of  the  Horse”  a Total  Failure. — It  not  only 


XVI 


Synopsis  of  Contents. 


turns  out  to  be  no  Evidence,  but  is  the  Exact  Opposite  of  Evolution. — Professor  Huxley’s  “Demon- 
strative Evidence  of  Evolution”  Demonstrates  its  Complete  Want  of  Foundation. — Comparing  the  Basis 
of  Evolution  to  that  of  the  Copernican  System  of  Astronomy  Rebuked  as  it  Deserves. — The  Preposterous 
Character  of  the  Comparison  Exposed. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

DIFFICULTIES  AND  INCONSISTENCIES  OF  EVOLUTION. 

The  Origin  of  Wings  in  Birds,  Bats,  and  Insects,  Wholly  Inexplicable  on  the  Principles  of  Natural 
Selection. — A Difficulty  which  Evolutionists  never  Attempt  to  Meet. — Natural  Selection  can  Only 
Work  on  Useful  Organs  and  Variations. — Incipient  Wings  shown  to  be  not  only  Useless  but  Injurious, 
if  they  ever  Existed. — As  Natural  Selection  can  make  no  “Leaps,”  Wings  must  have  been  Miraculously 
Created. — Reasons  for  this  Conclusion. — The  First  Wings  demonstrated  to  have  been  Miraculously 
Formed. — All  Mechanical  Operations  which  Overcome  Laws  of  Nature,  Supernatural. — No  Device, 
such  as  a Wing,  where  Multiplied  Parts  show  Design  for  One  End,  can  Result  without  Primordial  In- 
tellect.— "l'he  Flying  of  Human  Beings,  by  Mechanical  Wings  Alone,  not  only  Possible  but  Probable 
in  the  Near  Future. — Mr.  Darwin’s  Theory  Again  Breaks  Down  by  his  own  Express  Stipulation. — The 
Rattlesnake’s  Musical  Appendage  could  not  have  been  Started  by  Evolution,  even  if  it  could  Afterward 
be  Improved  by  it. — The  Venom  of  Serpents  Conclusive  Proof  Against  the  Theory,  being  a Wonderful 
Chemical  Combination  Relating  Solely  toOther  Organisms.— It  could  only  have  Originated  by  Prior 
Intelligence. — The  Vegetable  Kingdom  has  Many  Examples  of  Design,  and  a Clearly  Intelligent  and 
Preconceived  Intention. — The  Pappus  of  the  Thistle  and  Dandelion,  for  Carrying  Seeds  through  the 
Air,  could  not  have  Originated  by  Natural  Selection,  as  their  Incipiency  would  have  been  Wholly 
Useless. — Mi'.  Darwin  Admits  that  on  Certain  Conditions  his  Theory  would  be  Annihilated. — The 
Conditions  Distinctly  Complied  With,  to  the  Letter. — Peculiar  Odor  and  Flavor  of  Ants  and  Bees  made 
for  the  Special  Benefit  of  Other  Species. — The  Odor  of  the  Fox’s  Feet  not  for  its  own  Good  (since  it 
leads  to  its  Destruction),  but  for  the  Advantage  of  the  Dog  and  Wolf. — Inconsistencies  of  Evolution 
Pointed  Out. — The  Mane  of  the  Lion  claimed  by  Mr.  Darwin  to  have  been  Developed  as  a Protection. 
— The  Question  of  the  Neck  of  the  Giraffe  having  been  Elongated  to  Reach  the  Branches  of  Trees 
Examined. — The  Whole  Supposition  Shown  ta  be  Clearly  Absurd. — The  Trunks  of  Elephants  Con- 
sidered.— The  Hive-Bee’s  Sting  Developed  to  Cause  Suicide  if  Used. — Natural  Selection  could  not 
have  Produced  it. — Useless  Bees,  such  as  Hornets,  Wasps,  and  Bumble-Bees,  can  Sting  Without 
Danger  to  Themselves. — The  Reason  Why,  and  a Design  in  this  Difference. — The  Mimicry  of  Insects, 
Worms,  &c.,  for  Protection  from  Birds,  Examined. — Mr.  Darwin  Congratulates  Himself  that  he  has 
Aided  in  Overthrowing  Creation. — A Former  Pledge  Redeemed. — Professor  Haeckel  Proved  to  have 
Unwittingly  Yielded  the  Whole  Question  of  Evolution. — He  is  Indorsed  by  Mr.  Darwin. — '1  lie  Proof 
Conclusive. — Mr.  Darwin  again  Admits  his  Theory  will  “Break  Down”  on  Certain  Conditions. — 
(These  Conditions  Pointed  Out  in  Hundreds  of  Instances. — He  Furnishes  Himself  the  Direct  Proof 
which  Breaks  Down  his  Theory. — He  Virtually  but  Unwittingly  Admits  that  Wings  must  have  been 
Created. — Self-Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies  Multiply. — The  Theory  of  Descent  Hopelessly 
Breaks  Down. 


THE 


PROBLEM  OF  HUMAN  LIFE. 


Chapter  I. 


EVOLU  TION—  DA  R IVIN  ISM. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Progress  of  Modern  Evolution. — Darwin  justly  entitled  to  its  honor. — Others  who  have  pre- 
viously suggested  the  Theory. — The  System  briefly  stated. — All  organized  beings  claimed  to  have 
been  developed  from  one  or  a few  simple  forms. — Facts  and  Arguments  supposed  to  favor  Evolution. — 
Partial  Resemblance  of  all  Animals,  including  Man. — Their  similar  Anatomical  Structures. — A Gradu- 
ated Scale  of  Being. — The  Geologic  Record. — A Graduation  of  Paleontologic  Remains  from  the  Lower 
Forms  of  Life  toward  the  Higher,  and  from  the  Lower  Strata  toward  the  Higher. — Embryology,  Rudi- 
mentary Organs,  and  Reversionary  Action,  the  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine. — Hitherto 
unexplained  by  Opponents  of  Darwin. — Evidence  from  the  Breeder  and  Fancier. — Methodical  Selection 
claimed  to  be  the  same  as  Natural  Selection. — Wonderful  changes  in  the  forms  of  Pigeons,  Cattle, 
Sheep,  &c. — Necessity  of  meeting  every  Fact  and  Deduction  of  Darwin. — Ignoring  or  Evading  the 
Facts  fatal. — Many  Clergymen,  especially  in  England,  surrendering  to  Evolution. — The  Reason  Why. — 
The  Utter  Incompatibility  of  the  Theory  with  Religion  or  Theism. — The  Great  Ability  and  Candor 
of  the  Advocates  of  the  Theory  held  to  be  presumptive  of  its  truth. 


There  is  not,  perhaps,  a question 
In  the  range  of  human  knowledge — 
Whether  it  relates  to  science, 

Morals,  politics,  religion, — 

Which  more  seriously  concerns  us  5 

And  the  intellectual  millions 
Who  shall  live  to  represent  us 
Than  the  one  we  now  consider, — 

Which,  in  all  its  scope  and  bearing, 
Indirectly  and  directly,  10 

Claims  and  must  receive  attention. 

Whence  we  came  and  whither  tending 
Is  the  problem  of  all  problems. 

There  can  be  no  longer  skulking 
Or  evading  Evolution  15 

As  a postulate  of  Science, 

Now  aggressively  presented 
In  its  broadest  acceptation 
And  its  most  defiant  aspect; — 

While  to  flauntingly  ignore  it  20 


As  unworthy  of  attention 
By  believers  in  religion — 

By  the  thoughtful  men  of  science — 

Or  the  intellectual  masses 

Who  admit  the  claims  of  reason  25 

And  of  mental  independence, — 

Is  to  play  the  role  of  coward, 

And  shut  down  the  gates  of  progress 
To  all  true  investigation. 

Though  the  problems  of  the  doctrine,  30 
As  now  boldly  advocated, 

Tend  to  paralyze  one’s  notions 
Of  the  dignity  of  manhood, — 

Mocking  by  their  tantalizing 

With  a past  of  degradation,  35 

Placing  man  upon  a level 

With  the  lowest  brutes  which  perish, — 

Though  their  ghastly  consequences 

Chill  our  faith  in  all  that’s  sacred, 

Or  endears  us  to  the  present,  40 

(17) 


1 8 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Blighting  with  humiliation 
All  our  innate  pride  of  feeling, — 

Though  its  manifest  conclusions 

Stupefy  and  horrify  us 

With  complete  disgust  at  Nature,  5 

And  its  most  stupendous  folly 

In  our  meaningless  existence, 

With  the  blank  annihilation 
Which  awaits  us  in  the  future; — 

Yet  the  theory  in  question  10 

Has  become  so  firmly  rooted 
In  the  very  mental  structure 
Of  the  scientific  masses, 

And  has  gained  such  ground  and  standing 
With  most  Naturalists  of  Europe  15 

And  our  greatest  men  of  science, 

Having  gathered  to  its  standard 
Such  arrays  of  learned  writers 
Who  now  boldly  advocate  it, 

With  such  mental  cultivation  20 

And  profound  research  and  learning, 
Volunteering  to  support  it, 

Largely  aided  and  abetted 

By  the  press  throughout  the  country, 

With  so  many  facts  of  science,  25 

Which  all  physiologic  writers 
Recognize  as  well  established, — 

Claimed  as  only  explicable 

By  the  postulates  of  Darwin 

So  ingeniously  constructed,  30 

That  to  ridicule  the  system 

Or  deride  its  revelations 

As  unworthy  of  attention, 

Is  equivalent  to  granting 

All  its  advocates  contend  for.  35 

Darwin’s  theory  must  therefore 
Be  acknowledged  as  a system 
Worthy  of  consideration, — 

An  hypothesis  of  science 

Which  will  not  down  at  our  bidding, — 40 

Will  not  be  ignored  nor  silenced 

By  sarcastic  innuendoes, 

Ridicule  or  contumely. 

Hence  it  is  my  purpose  frankly 
To  confront  the  dread  invader  45 


Of  our  ancestral  traditions, — 

Meet  the  innovating  hydra 
At  its  fortified  entrenchments; — 

Though  with  infinite  unfitness 

For  a combat  so  Herculean,  50 

Yet  I make  the  contribution 

Of  the  arguments  which  follow, 

In  the  faith  that  truth  is  mighty 
And  must  ultimately  triumph, 

Whether  it  be  Evolution  55 

Or  the  doctrine  of  Creation 
As  our  ancestors  have  taught  us; — 
Holding  with  a firm  conviction 
That  there  is  no  real  conflict, 

Truth  with  truth  whencever  hailing,  60 
And  that  no  antagonism 
Can  exist  between  religion 
And  true  scientific  knowledge, 
Whatsoever  it  inculcates. 

Let  us  first  of  all  consider  65 

What  we  mean  by  Evolution , 

Or,  correctly,  Darwinism; 

For  Charles  Darwin’s  wondrous  genius 
And  research  unprecedented, — 

Patient,  tireless,  persistent, — 70 

In  collecting  facts  of  science 

From  all  parts  of  earth’s  dominions, 

In  comparing  countless  data, 

Analyzing,  classifying, 

And  arranging  them  in  order, — 75 

Make  the  system  his  by  honor; 

And  though  crudely  intimated 
By  Lamarck,  and  even  Goethe, 

Oken,  also  Treviranus, 

And  a few  less  noted  writers,  80 

He  alone  has  raised  the  system 
To  the  dignity  of  “Science,” 

As  its  advocates  now  rank  it. 

Darwinism,  then,  inculcates 
As  its  fundamental  doctrine  85 

That  all  classes,  orders,  species, — 

That  all  animate  creation, 

On  the  land  or  in  the  water, — 

Whether  man  or  lower  mammals, 


Evolution — Darwinism. 


l9 


Whether  birds,  or  fish,  or  reptiles, — 

Are  the  lineal  descendants 

Of  “one  form”  or  of  a “few  forms” 

Lower  than  the  lowest  mollusks 

Which  inhabited  the  ocean  5 

Prior  to  the  first  deposits 

Which  now  form  the  Cambrian  system; 

And  that  these  ancestral  creatures, 

As  the  prototypes  and  parents 
Of  all  living  organisms,  10 

Were  originally  constructed 
By  an  infinite  “Creator,” 

Through  a special  act  of  power* 

Darwin’s  theory  informs  us 
That  the  laws  of  Evolution  15 

Raised  these  simplest  forms  of  being, 

Such  as  monera  or  polyps, 

By  developing  their  structure 
To  a higher  organism, — 

That  the  law  of  transmutation  20 

Known  as  Natural  Selection 
Or  Survival  of  the  Fittest , 

Scrutinizing  every  being, 

Seized  each  favorable  divergence, 

Or  spontaneous  variation,  25 

Adding  up,  accumulating, 

Through  unnumbered  generations, 

All  such  small  organic  changes 

As  might  prove  most  beneficial 

To  the  creatures  thus  attended,  30 

Till  varieties  were  fashioned 

Differing  from  primal  parent; 

And  that  by  accumulating 
Similar  divergent  structures 
Spreading  and  divaricating,  35 

Fostered  by  the  same  protection, 

Helped  by  natural  selection, 

All  specific  forms  of  structure, 

Genera  and  groups  of  species, 

* “There  is  a grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with 
its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed 
by  the  Creator  into  a few  forms  or  into  one.” — 
“ When  I view  all  beings  not  as  special  creations , 
but  as  the  lineal  descendants  of  some  few  beings 
which  lived  long  before  the  first  bed  of  the  Cambiian 
system  was  deposited , they  seem  to  me  to  become 
ennobled.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species, pp.428, 429. 


Orders,  families,  and  classes,  40 

Have  been  finally  developed, 

Peopling  earth,  and  air,  and  water. 

Thus  has  natural  selection, 

As  this  theory  assures  us, 

Made  its  gradual  progression  45 

From  the  very  lowest  structure 
Through  the  geologic  ages, 

Changing  almost  lifeless  sponges — 
Rhizopods  or  protozoans — 

Into  more  developed  mollusks,  50 

From  the  pecten  to  ascidian, 

Thence  to  higher  forms  of  structure: 

First,  the  low  articulata — 

Astacus  and  annulosa — 

To  the  strange  pagurian  hermit;  55 

Thence  to  primal  forms  of  fishes, 

Such  as  paleozoic  ganoids; 

Thence  to  higher  forms  of  lizard — 
Ichthyosaurus,  plesiosaurus, 

And  the  flying  pterodactyl, — 60 

Through  amphibia  and  reptilia, 

And  batrachian  organisms; 

Thence  through  birds  of  countless  patterns 
Till  it  reached  the  lowest  mammal, 

Such  as  monotreme  or  duck-bill,  65 

Or  that  strange  ornithorhynchus, 

Scarcely  one  remove  from  reptile; 

But  soon  raised  by  evolution 
To  a grade  the  next  in  order, 

Classified  marsupialia — 70 

Such  as  kangaroos  and  wombats, 

Or  American  opossums; — 

Still  development  continues, 

By  this  struggle  for  existence, 

Under  natural  selection,  75 

Seizing  every  variation 
Favorable  to  growing  organs, 

Adding  up,  accumulating, 

Tending  toward  a perfect  mammal: 
Rabbits,  foxes,  wolves,  are  fashioned,  80 
Jackals,  lions,  and  hyenas, 

Till  survival  of  the  fittest 

Strikes  at  last  the  lower  monkeys, — 

Lemur  first  and  then  macacus, — 


20 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


And  through  them  to  quadrumana 
Of  the  highest  types  of  structure, 

Such  as  orang  and  gorilla, 

From  which  man — the  final  climax — 
Ultimately  was  developed, — 5 

If  not  from  those  very  species, 

Yet  from  congeners  of  monkeys 
Like  the  gibbon  or  chimpanzee. 

Thus,  with  conscientious  fairness 
I have  tried  to  state  the  doctrine,  10 

Just  as  now  maintained  by  Darwin 
In  his  various  publications, 

And  by  numerous  other  writers 
Who  have  rallied  to  his  standard, 

To  sustain  the  central  idea  15 

That  man  never  was  created 
By  a special  act  of  power; — 

That  there  has  been  no  creation 

Of  a single  tribe  or  species 

Since  the  moneron  or  polyp  20 

Or  the  lowest  form  of  mollusk 

Was  originally  constructed; — 

That  the  doctrine  of  Creation 
By  the  fiat  of  Jehovah, 

As  believed  and  taught  for  ages  25 

By  all  sects  of  Jews  and  Christians, 

Or  that  any  form  of  doctrine 
Which  maintains  that  God  created 
And  endowed  the  various  species, 

Therein  having  plan  or  purpose,  30 

Wisdom  or  preordination, 

To  adapt  them  to  their  places 
In  the  polity  of  Nature; — 

Or  that  God  now  supervises 
Nature’s  complicated  network,  35 

Taking  any  part  whatever 
In  the  universe  of  matter, 

Or  has  even  conscious  knowledge 

Of  the  workings  of  creation 

Is  but  childish  superstition  40 

And  the  silliest  of  nonsense 

Growing  from  the  wiles  of  priestcraft 

And  our  ignorance  of  science; — 

And,  per  consequence,  the  Bible, 


As  a book  of  revelation,  45 

And  the  churches  founded  on  it, 

With  their  worship  and  religion, 

Are  an  infinite  deception. 

Let  me  summarize,  quite  briefly, 

An  epitome  of  reasons  50 

On  which  Darwinism  bases 
These  astonishing  assumptions. 

Man  shows  evidence,  it  tells  us, 

Of  descent  from  lower  mammals 

By  so  many  parts  resembling,  55 

Such  as  brain  and  facial  organs, 

Bones  and  muscular  formations, 

As  at  once  is  demonstrated 
In  the  structure  of  phalanges, 

Of  os  coccygis  and  leg-bones,  60 

And  the  manifest  resemblance 
Of  the  skulls  of  quadrumana — 

Those  of  orang  and  gorilla — 

With  the  lowest  human  species, 

Such  as  natives  of  Australia; — 65 

While  Anatomy  assures  us 
That  within  our  osseous  structure 
Bones  are  found  the  same  precisely 
As  in  lower  organisms — 

Horses,  dogs,  and  bats,  for  instance, — 70 
Of  which  there  is  no  solution 
And  can  be  no  explanation — 

Say  the  chief  expounder  Darwin 
And  his  great  apostle  Huxley — 

Save  descent  from  common  parents.  75 

Then  the  regular  gradation 
In  morphology  of  structure, 

From  the  lower  tribes  of  mammals 
Toward  the  higher  organisms, 

With  such  general  resemblance  So 

And  such  gradual  transition 
In  the  more  related  beings, 

Species,  genera,  and  races, 

As  prevents  all  true  distinction 
In  those  lines  of  demarcation  85 

Which  should  stamp  specific  structures 
If  they  had  not  all  descended 
From  one  prototype  in  nature, 


Ciur.  I. 


Evolution 


Darwinism. 


21 


Or  if  separate  forms  were  fashioned 
By  an  infinite  Creator.* 

Then  the  system  points  with  triumph 
To  the  geologic  record, 

And  its  scale  of  graduation  5 

From  the  lowest  sponge  or  polyp 
Or  the  simplest  form  of  mollusk 
Bedded  in  the  Cambrian  strata, 

Claimed  among  its  earliest  pages 

Yet  preserved  from  igneous  action; — io 

Then,  as  ages  were  advancing 

And  the  sedimentary  chapters 

Of  a later  date  were  added — 

As  the  littoral  deposits 

And  the  ocean’s  estuaries  15 

From  the  mountains’  denudation 

Writ  new  forms  upon  the  record — 

We  observe  new  groups  and  species 
Higher  in  the  scale  of  being, 

By  transitional  gradation  20 

Upward  through  the  forms  of  fishes, 
Lizards,  frogs,  and  alligators, 
Megalosaurus,  compsognathus, 
Glyptodons,  and  fossil  turtles, 

Birds,  amphibia,  and  mammals, — 25 

Dinotherium,  megatherium, 

And  the  mastodontic  fossils 
Found  within  the  later  tertiary; — 

Then  the  graduated  structures 
Of  the  horse  as  found  in  fossils,  30 

From  the  far-off  orohippus 
Of  the  eocene  deposits 

* “ The  similar  framework  of  bones  in  the  hand 
of  a man,  wing  of  a bat,  fin  of  a porpoise,  and  leg 
of  a horse,  ....  and  innumerable  other  facts,  at 
once  explain  themselves  on  the  theory  of  descent 
-with  slot v and  slight  successive  modifications." — 
“We  may  further  venture  to  believe  that  the  sev- 
eral bones  in  the  limbs  of  the  monkey,  horse,  and 
bat,  were  originally  developed  on  the  principle  of 
utility,  probably  through  the  reduction  of  more  nu- 
merous bones  in  the  fin  of  some  ancient  fish-like 
progenitor  of  the  -whole  class." — “ How  inexplicable 
is  the  similar  pattern  of  the  hand  of  a man,  the 
foot,  of  a dog,  the  wing  of  a bat,  the  flipper  of  a 
seal,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  independent  acts  of  crea- 
tion ! Ho-w  simply  explained  on  the  principle  of 
the  natural  selection  of  successive  slight  variations 
in  the  diverging  descendants  from  a single  progeni- 
tor!"— Darwin,  Otigin  of  Species,  pp.  160,  420. 
Also,  Animals  and  Plants,  v.  1,  p.  23. 


In  the  lower  tertiary  stratum, 

Through  more  recent  mesohippus, 
Miohippus,  protohippus,  35 

To  the  horse  as  now  developed; — 

All,  it  claims,  are  proofs  conclusive 
That  developmental  progress 
From  the  lower  toward  the  higher — 

One  transmuted  from  the  other — 40 

Is  the  order  of  creation, 

And  the  only  plan  in  nature 
For  the  origin  of  species. 

Then,  with  still  increased  assurance 
Do  these  evolution  writers  45 

Point  to  embryologic  data 
As  a proof  of  Darwinism, 

Where  the  embryos  of  infants 
And  all  lower  vertebrata — 

Such  as  monkeys,  dogs,  and  chickens, — 50 
At  an  early  stage  of  structure 
Are  alike  in  all  essentials, 

And  can  scarcely  be  distinguished 
From  each  other  when  examined: 

Infants  have  the  gills  of  fishes  55 

Just  the  same  as  birds  and  puppies. 
Lizards,  serpents,  and  tortoises, — 

And  have  also  tails  in  common, 

Just  the  same  as  cats  and  lemurs, 

And  with  toes  projecting  sidewise  60 

Like  the  toes  of  quadrumana, 

Which  are  facts  by  no  one  doubted 
And  by  no  one  called  in  question, 

Which  all  physiologic  records 

Have  set  down  as  facts  of  science; — 65 

All  of  which  Darwinian  writers 

Claim  are  only  explicable 

By  descent  from  common  parents, 

And  that  separate  creations 

Of  generic  forms  in  nature  70 

Fail  in  toto  to  explain  them. 

Then  these  naturalists  confront  us 
With  the  rudimentary  problem, 

And  the  remnants  of  lost  organs 
Useful  to  some  prior  species  75 

But  now  useless  or  aborted, 

And  retained  to  prove  the  record 


22 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Of  descent  by  transmutation, — 

Organs  without  use  or  purpose, 

Shown  in  embryonic  structures, 

But  completely  dissipated 
Ere  assuming  natal  functions,  5 

Such  as  teeth  in  whales,  for  instance, 
Where  adults  have  only  whalebone; 

And  in  calves,  while  embryonic, 

Which  are  toothless  when  developed, 

As  with  upper  front  incisors.  10 

What,  these  writers  ask  in  triumph, 

Can  explain  these  facts  of  science 
Save  descent  with  filiation 
And  transmuted  organism  ? 

Then  they  hurl  upon  opponents  15 

That  most  overwhelming  problem 
Called  “ reversionary  action,” — 

Special  organs  re-appearing, 

Even  in  the  human  species, 

After  lapse  of  countless  ages  20 

Or  of  untold  generations, 

Such  as  organs  of  marsupials, 

Normal  only  to  that  order, 

Often  found  in  human  mothers, — 

For  which  Darwin,  Huxley,  Haeckel,  25 
And  all  evolution  writers, 

Most  defiantly  assure  us 

There  can  be  no  explanation 

Save  descent  from  common  parents; — 

Or,  in  other  words,  that  women  30 

Are  the  lineal  descendants 
Of  the  kangaroo  or  wombat 
Or  marsupial  opossum! — 

While  aggressively  they  tell  us 

That  not  one  of  all  the  writers  35 

Now  opposed  to  evolution 

Dares  to  touch  the  facts  referred  to, — 

Such  as  embryonic  problems, 

Rudimentary  formations, 

And  reversionary  actions; — 40 

But,  though  absolutely  crushing, 

Are  ignored,  because  these  problems 
Never  can  be  explicated 
By  the  doctrine  of  creation. 

Then  to  demonstrate  the  power  45 


Of  survival  of  the  fittest 

Or  of  natural  selection 

To  produce  results  so  wondrous, 

Darwinism  points  to  breeders 

And  the  triumphs  of  the  fancier,  50 

Whose  astounding  transformations 

In  the  various  breeds  of  pigeons, 

Sheep  and  cattle,  dogs  and  horses, 

Give  the  fullest  intimation 
Of  transmuted  forms  in  nature.  55 

It  asserts  that  nature’s  process 
Of  transmuting  organisms 
Under  natural  selection — 

Such  as  fish  to  alligator 

Or  the  dog  to  orang-outang — 60 

Is  the  same,  in  all  essentials, 

As  methodical  selection 
Practised  by  the  pigeon-fancier; — 

While  it  sees  no  difficulty 

In  generic  transmutations,  65 

Under  ages  of  improvement, 

Even  of  a fish  to  tortoise 
And  of  jackal  to  macacus, 

If  a man  can  form  a fantail, 

Pouter,  carrier,  or  tumbler,  70 

Out  of  common  dovecote  pigeons. 

These,  with  many  other  reasons — 
Though  these  are  the  very  strongest — 
Satisfy  savants  like  Darwin 
And  most  naturalists  of  Europe  75 

That  all  species  have  descended 
From  one  prototype  in  nature, — 

While  triumphantly  they  challenge 
Any  other  explanation 
Of  these  facts  of  various  classes  80 

Than  descent  by  transmutation 
From  one  prototype  or  parent.* 

*“The  main  conclusion  here  arrived  at,  and 
now  held  by  many  naturalists  who  are  well  compe- 
tent to  form  a sound  judgment,  is,  that  man  is  de- 
scended from  some  less  highly  organized  form. 
The  grounds  upon  which  this  conclusion  rests  will 
never  be  shaken,  for  the  close  similarity  between 
man  and  the  lower  animals  in  embryonic  develop- 
ment, as  well  as  in  innumerable  points  of  structure 
and  constitution,  both  of  high  and  of  the  most  tri- 
fling importance, — the  rudiments  which  he  retains, 
and  the  abnormal  reversions  to  which  he  is  occa- 


Chai* 1.  I. 


Evolution — Darwinism. 


23 


This,  then,  states  the  question  fairly, 

In  its  broadest  acceptation, 

Though  beneath  the  superstructure 
Reared  upon  these  facts  of  science, 

As  ingeniously  presented  5 

And  insisted  on  by  Darwin, 

Everything  held  dear  and  sacred 
In  our  dignity  of  being — 

Memories  of  early  childhood, 

Faith  and  trust  in  God’s  protection,  10 
As  our  guide  and  benefactor, 

With  all  hopes  of  life  hereafter — 

Has  been  crushed  and  ground  to  powder. 

These  are  facts  of  solemn  portent, 
Hurled  by  Darwin  and  his  cohorts  15 

Like  an  avalanche  of  fire 

sionally  liable, — are  facts  which  can  not  be  disputed. 
They  have  long  been  known,  but  until  recently 
they  told  us  nothing  with  respect  to  the  origin  of 
man.  Now,  when  viewed  by  the  light  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  whole  organic  world,  their  mean- 
ing is  unmistakable.  The  great  principle  of  evolu- 
tion stands  up  clear  and  firm , when  these  groups  of 
facts  are  considered  in  connection  with  others,  such 
as  the  mutual  affinities  of  the  members  of  the  same 
group,  their  geographical  distribution  in  past  and 
present  times,  and  their  geological  succession.  It 
is  incredible  that  all  these  facts  should  speak  falsely. 
He  who  is  not  content  to  look,  like  a savage,  at  the 
phenomena  of  nature  as  disconnected,  can  not  any 
longer  believe  that  man  is  the  work  of  a separate  act 
of  creation.  He  will  be  forced  to  admit  that  the  close 
resemblance  of  the  embryo  of  a man  to  that,  for  in- 
stance, of  a dog, — the  construction  of  his  skull, 
limbs,  and  whole  frame,  on  the  same  plan  with  that 
of  other  mammals,  independently  of  the  uses  to 
which  the  parts  may  be  put, — the  occasional  reap- 
pearance of  various  structures,  for  instance  of  sev- 
eral muscles  which  man  does  not  normally  possess 
but  which  are  common  to  the  quadrumana, — and  a 
crowd  of  analogous  facts, — all  point  in  the  plainest 
manner  to  the  conclusion  that  man  is  the  co-descend- 
ant with  other  mammals  of  a common  progenitor.” 
— “By  considering  the  embryological  structure  of 
man, — the  homologies  which  he  presents  with  the 
lower  animals, — the  rudiments  which  he  retains, — 
and  the  reversions  to  which  he  is  liable, — we  can 
partly  recall  in  imagination  the  former  condition  of 
our  early  progenitors,  and  can  approximately  place 
them  in  their  proper  place  in  the  zoological  series. 
We  thus  learn  that  man  is  descended  from  a hairy, 
tailed  quadruped,  probably  arborial  in  its  habits, 
and  an  inhabitant  of  the  Old  World.  This  crea- 
ture, if  its  whole  structure  had  been  examined  by  a 
naturalist,  would  have  been  classed  amongst  the 
quadrumana,  as  surely  as  the  still  more  ancient 
progenitor  of  the  Old  and  New  World  monkeys. 
The  quadrumana  and  all  the  higher  mammals  are 


From  his  kindling  torch  of  logic, 

Sweeping  down  upon  the  nations 
As  if  from  a burning  crater, 

Crisping  every  living  substance,  20 

And  which  soon  must  crush  religion, — 
Leaving  earth  in  total  darkness, 

Drying  up  the  very  fountain 
Of  the  higher  life  within  us, 

Unless  reason,  facts,  and  science  25 

Can  be  brought  to  stay  the  torrent; — 

For  if  man  is  but  a monkey 
In  a higher  state  of  culture, 

And  the  monkey  but  a porpoise, 

And  the  porpoise  but  ascidian,  30 

What  can  man  expect  or  hope  for 
As  to  life  beyond  the  present 
Which  is  not  in  store  for  mollusks  ? 

probably  derived  from  an  ancient  marsupial  animal , 
and  this,  through  a long  line  of  diversified  forms, 
from  some  amphibian-like  creature,  and  this  again 
from  some  fish-like  animal.  In  the  dim  obscurity 
of  the  past  we  can  see  that  the  early  progenitor  of 
all  the  vertebrata  must  have  been  an  aquatic  animal, 
provided  with  branchiae,  with  the  two  sexes  united 
in  the  same  individual,  and  with  the  most  important 
organs  of  the  body  (such  as  the  brain  and  heart) 
imperfectly  or  not  at  all  developed.  This  animal 
seems  to  have  been  more  like  the  larvce  of  the  ex- 
isting marine  Ascidians  than  any  other  known 
form.” — Darwin,  Descent  of  Alan,  pp.  606,  609. 

“In  accordance  with  the  views  maintained  by 
me  in  this  work  and  elsewhere,  not  only  the  various 
domestic  races,  but  the  most  distinct  genera  and  orders 
within  the  same  great  class, — for  instance  whales, 
mice,  birds,  and  fishes, — are  all  the  descendants  of 
one  common  progenitor , and  we  must  admit  that  the 
whole  vast  amount  of  difference  between  these  forms 
of  life  has  primarily  arisen  from  simple  variability. 
To  consider  the  subject  under  this  point  of  view  is 
enough  to  strike  one  dumb  with  amazement.” — 
Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants,  v.  11.  p.  513. 

“ Of  all  the  individual  questions  answered  by  the 
Theory  of  Descent,  of  all  the  special  inferences 
drawn  from  it,  there  is  none  of  such  importance  as 
the  application  of  this  doctrine  to  Man  himself.  As 

I remarked  at  the  beginning  of  this  treatise,  the  in- 
exorable necessity  of  the  strictest  logic  forces  us  to 
draw  the  special  deductive  conclusion  from  the 
general  inductive  law  of  the  theory  that  man  has 
developed  gradually,  and  step  by  step,  out  of  the  lower 
vertebrata,  and  more  immediately  out  of  the  ape-like 
mammals.  That  this  doctrine  is  an  inseparable 
part  of  the  theory  of  descent,  and  hence  also  of  the 
universal  theory  of  development  in  general,  is  re- 
cognized by  all  thoughtful  adherents  of  the  theory.” 
— Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  v.  II.,  p.  263. 

[Professor  Haeckel  is  the  very  highest  authority 
in  Germany  on  Evolution,  and  is  so  regarded  by 
Mr.  Darwin  himself. — Pubs.] 


24 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


These  are  facts  which  no  ignoring 
On  our  part  can  ever  weaken, 

Or  denial  make  less  fearful, 

And  might  just  as  well  be  given 
Frank  and  candid  recognition  5 

First  as  last  in  all  their  import 
And  their  startling  consequences. 

Sneering  by  the  superficial, 

Frowning  by  the  learned  clergy 

And  unscientific  writers  10 

At  a system  so  “ preposterous  ” 

Will  not  answer  laws  of  science 
Based  on  careful  observation 
And  arranged  in  solid  phalanx, 

Backed  by  countless  facts  collected  15 

From  authorities  unquestioned. 

Ridicule  and  contumely 

Heaped  upon  the  men  who  argue 

From  a scientific  standpoint 

That  our  prototypes  were  fishes  20 

And  our  nearer  kin  are  orangs, 

Will  not  break  the  chain  of  logic, 

With  its  links  of  facts  and  data, 

Which  they  bring  to  bear  on  structures 
From  anatomy’s  vast  storehouse, — 25 

Which  they  concentrate  on  organs 
Embryonic  and  aborted, 

Rudimental  and  reverted, — 

Nor  destroy  the  graduation 

Through  all  lower  forms  to  monkeys,  30 

And  through  them  to  human  beings, — 

Nor  annul  the  clear  citations 

From  the  breeder  and  the  fancier, 

Whose  methodical  selections 

And  developments  of  structure  35 

Can  not  be  gainsaid  nor  questioned. 

Unless  argument  and  reason, 

Scientific  law  and  fitness, 

Shall  successfully  unravel 

And  explain  the  facts  they  furnish,  40 

And  thus  clearly  harmonize  them 

With  the  doctrine  of  creation 

And  the  hand  of  God  in  nature, 

We  might  just  as  well  surrender 

Once  for  all  the  social  system  45 


Growing  out  of  revelation, 

And  the  hopes  by  it  inspired. 

Hence  it  matters  not  what  reasons 
Based  on  scientific  fitness 
May  be  urged  against  this  system  50 
While  these  facts  remain  unanswered, — 
Or  what  towering  difficulties 
Crowd  the  path  of  transmutation, 

Even  though  they  seem  o’erwhelming, 

And  at  times  bewilder  Darwin,  55 

As  he  contemplates  their  bearing; — * 

Yet  these  writers  calmly  tell  us 
That  such  points,  however  staggering, 

And  how  formidable  soever, 

Weigh  as  nothing  in  the  balance  60 

With  those  other  facts  referred  to, — 

And  that  thus  preponderating 
They  must  silence  all  objection 
Based  on  superficial  reasons, 

Balancing  the  book  of  judgment  65 

And  our  fallible  conceptions 
Of  the  mysteries  of  nature. 

Thus  these  facts  arrayed  by  Darwin — 
An  impregnable  prolepsis — 

Cogent  and  forever  present,  70 

And  forever  re-assuring, — 

Toward  which  all  Darwinian  writers 
Rush  when  battle’s  gauge  bears  thickest, 
As  the  pickets  of  an  army 
Run  for  safety  to  their  breastworks, — 75 
Must  be  absolutely  answered, 

Or  it  is  but  childish  folly 

Writing  treatises  and  memoirs 

Aiming  to  rebut  a system 

While  its  facts  remain  unnoticed,  80 

Which  at  most  but  places  reason 

In  direct  antagonism 

To  established  laws  of  science; 

And  if  I could  not  now  clearly 


* “ T.ong  before  the  reader  has  arrived  at  this 
part  of  my  work,  a crowd  of  difficulties  will  have 
occurred  to  him.  Some  of  them  are  so  serious  that 
to  this  dav  / can  hardly  refleet  on  them  without 
being  in  some  degree  staggered." — Darwin,  Origin 
of  Species , p.  133. 


Ciiap.  I. 


Evolution — Darwinism. 


25 


See  how  all  those  facts  and  problems 
Can  be  met  and  explicated, 

And  be  turned  against  the  doctrine 
They  have  been  coerced  to  favor, 

I would  drop  my  pen  this  moment  5 

And  not  write  another  sentence 
In  review  of  evolution; — 

For  why  write  against  a system 
When  its  leading  facts  defy  us, 

And  we  are  compelled  to  skulk  them,  10 
Which  has  been  the  case  with  Darwin 
And  his  laws  of  transmutation, — 

Not  one  writer  having  grappled 
With  those  embryonic  problems, 
Rudimentary  formations,  15 

Morphologic  planes  of  semblance, 
Anatomic  graduations, 

Or  reversionary  actions, 

Till,  with  tantalizing  menace, 

Haeckel’s  most  aggressive  treatise  20 

Hurls  that  fact  at  all  opponents, — 
Namely,  that  no  man  has  ventured 
Either  to  deny  or  solve  them, 

And  that  no  man  dares  to  meddle 
With  these  facts,  or  even  state  them,  25 
When  reviewing  Darwinism!* 

It  is  therefore  not  sufficient 
To  denounce  the  views  of  Darwin 
And  those  of  his  coadjutors 
As  but  bald  materialism,  30 

Atheistical  in  bearing, 

Tending  to  supplant  religion 
And  upset  the  social  system 

* “ Now  man,  in  the  first  months  of  development , 
possesses  a real  tail  as  well  as  his  nearest  kindred 
the  tailless  apes,  and  vertebrate  animals  in  gen- 
eral.”— “In  this  intimate  connection  of  ontogeny 
[resemblance  of  all  embryos]  and  phytogeny  [com- 
mon descent]  I see  one  of  the  most  important  and 
irrefutable  proofs  of  the  theory  of  descent.  No  one 
can  explain  these  phenomena  unless  he  has  recourse 
to  the  laws  of  inheritance  and  adaptation : by  these 
alone  are  they  explicable." — “No  opponent  of  the 
theory,  of  descent  has  been  able  to  give  an  explanation 
of  this  extremely  -ivonderful  fact,  whereas  it  is  per- 
fectly explained,  according  to  the  theory  of  descent, 
by  the  laws  of  inheritance  and  adaptation.” — 
Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  v.i.,  pp.  308,310, 3 13. 


(Which  are  points,  no  doubt,  well  taken), 
For  these  are  the  very  reasons  35 

Why  some  men  would  sieze  upon  them 
As  congenial  speculations, 

Holding  them  a very  godsend 
To  disprove  a God’s  existence; — 

But  their  arguments  and  reasons,  40 

Based  on  well-known  facts  of  science, 
Such  as  embryonic  semblance 
Of  all  tribes  of  vertebrata, — 

Facts  which  no  one  calls  in  question 
Who  pretends  to  education, — 45 

Facts  from  nature  all  around  us, 
Universally  admitted, 

And  their  plausible  deductions, 

Most  ingeniously  constructed, 

Must  be  fearlessly  presented  50 

And  successfully  refuted 

In  their  fullest  scope  and  meaning, 

If  these  rapidly  advancing 

Doctrines  are  to  be  arrested 

Or  their  tendency  averted.  55 

All  the  honest  fulminations, 

Well-meant  ridicule  and  sarcasm, 

Caustic  cuts  and  innuendoes, 

Thundered  from  a thousand  pulpits 
And  a million  publications  60 

Will  not  stay  their  onward  progress 
Or  prevent  their  blighting  mildew 
While  the  arguments  and  logic 
From  such  facts  remain  unanswered; 

But  will  rather  tend  to  foster  65 

Or  to  instigate  inquiry 

Or  originate  a craving 

In  the  minds  of  thoughtful  students, 

Leading  them  to  scan  a system 

Which  commands  such  reverend  censure. 70 

Is  it  not  a view  appalling, 

Not  less  than  humiliating, 

When  we  see  great  minds  surrender — 
Such  as  clergymen,  for  instance, 

As  so  common  now  in  England — 75 

One  by  one  to  Darwinism, 

With  its  ritual  of  Selection 


26 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Through  survival  of  the  fittest,  [them 
Which  their  common  sense  should  teach 
Is  devoid  of  all  religion, 

And  annihilates  all  vestige 
Of  a hope  of  life  hereafter? — 5 

Yet  some  seek  to  graft  religion 
On  to  modern  evolution, 

As  if  congeners  in  essence, — 

Which  is  virtually  proclaiming 

Christ  a well-developed  monkey,  10 

On  maternal  side  descended 

From  a moneron  or  tadpole; — 

For  no  miracle  whatever 

Is  allowed  by  Darwinism 

Since  primeval  life  was  started  15 

In  the  larva  of  a mollusk. 

Yes,  these  clergymen  by  hundreds 
Are  adopting  Darwinism, 

All  because  they  fail  to  answer 
Or  explain  to  satisfaction  20 

Certain  facts  revealed  by  science, 

Or  see  how  to  harmonize  them 
With  the  doctrine  of  creation 
(Though  such  facts  are  all  perverted, 

And  most  hideously  distorted,  25 

As  I hope  will  be  apparent 

Ere  this  treatise  is  concluded); — 

And  suppose,  by  compromising, 

Or  what  seems  a kind  of  “hedging,” 

That  a fraction  of  religion  30 

May  be  rescued  from  destruction 
By  conceding  Darwin’s  logic, 

And  his  paramount  conclusion 
Of  descent  by  transmutation, 

While  denying  all  that  portion  35 

Of  the  pantheistic  doctrine 

Such  as  want  of  plan  or  purpose 

Or  a supervising  power 

In  this  scheme  of  evolution, 

Cautiously  disclosed  by  Darwin  40 

But  courageously  asserted 
By  his  coadjutor  Haeckel. 

It  would  seem  that  desperation 
Must  have  taken  full  possession 
Of  the  cle  rgyrnen  referred  to,  45 


Who  thus  seek  a means  of  saving 
But  the  semblance  of  religion 
From  this  devastating  doctrine, 

So  audaciously  asserted 

By  all  writers  on  the  subject; — 50 

For  a man  is  simply  crazy 

Who  believes  in  God’s  existence 

To  suppose  that  Darwinism 

Harmonizes  with  religion 

Or  the  soul’s  immortal  nature,  55 

Or  the  possible  existence 

Of  a book  of  revelation, 

Or  of  any  intervention 

On  the  part  of  God  with  mortals, 

Which  the  system  roundly  scoffs  at  60 
As  the  weakest  superstition, — 

Which  it  is,  most  absolutely, 

If  the  theory  of  Darwin 
Be  admitted  scientific, 

As  he  would  himself  assure  us.  65 

Hence  my  object  in  this  treatise — 
After  calm  deliberation 
And  survey  of  all  its  data — 

Is  to  squarely  meet  the  system 

In  the  strongholds  of  its  fortress,  70 

Whether  I succumb  or  triumph — 

Whether  I survive  or  perish; 

And,  with  all  the  light  within  me 

Analyze  its  facts  and  problems 

In  their  strongest  presentation  75 

By  their  most  approved  exponents, 

Without  skulking  or  ignoring 

One  iota  of  its  logic 

Which  might  tend  to  force  conviction 

On  a mind  however  biased; — 80 

For,  unless  this  be  accomplished, 

Without  quibble  or  evasion, 

By  some  one  if  I am  vanquished 
In  this  “ struggle  for  existence,” 

There  is  not  the  slightest  question,  85 
In  the  judgment  of  this  writer, 

But  that  modern  evolution 
Will  continue  on  expanding 
Till  it  has  exterminated 


Chap.  I. 


Evolution — Darwinism. 


Every  vestige  of  religion, 

And  all  social  institutions 
Eased  on  teleologic  ideas 
Or  a Christian  revelation. 

Incidentally,  but  prior 
To  the  questions  thus  presented, 

I have  deemed  it  necessary, 

In  the  order  of  discussion, 

To  consider  other  problems 
Not  apparently  related 
To  the  postulates  of  Darwin, — 

Yet  collaterally  important, 

As  the  sequel  will  determine; — 

Such  as  God’s  primordial  nature, 

As  to  personal  existence, 

Showing  that  the  laws  of  being 

And  of  universal  fitness 

Make  it  really  necessary 

That  the  ultimate  causation 

Should  conceive,  design,  and  purpose, 

Carry  out  by  execution, — 

As  artificer  and  artist, 

Architect  and  mechanician, — 

Plans  primordially  concerted. 

Then,  that  such  intrinsic  selfhood 
Should  involve  substantial  essence, 
Though  intangible  to  senses 
In  corporeal  forms  of  being, 
Reference  is  had  to  forces 
Which  show  potency  and  power, 
Penetrating  densest  bodies 
Without  friction  or  displacement 
Of  their  molecules  or  atoms, 

Yet  demonstrably  substantial, 

Or  attenuated  matter. 

What  relationship,  for  instance, 
Sound,  or  light,  or  gravitation 
Can  assume  to  evolution, 

Or  the  postulates  of  Darwin, 

Might  at  first  not  strike  the  reader;— 
Yet  if  every  force  in  nature 
Should  be  clearly  demonstrated, 

In  defiance  of  evasion, 

To  be  absolutely  substance 


Or  attenuated  matter, 

Of  as  genuine  an  essence 
As  possessed  by  air  and  gases, 

Even  those  the  most  unlikely, — 

Such  as  sound  and  magnetism, 
Electricity,  caloric, 

Light,  and  even  gravitation, — 

Mind  would  have  no  difficulty, 

By  a proper  apperception, 

In  conceiving  mind  as  substance , 

And  the  varied  mental  powers, 
Through  all  grades  of  organism, 

From  the  highest  to  the  lowest, 

As  substantial  forms  of  being. 

Even  life  could  then  be  figured 
As  a substantive  existence, — 

Instinct  and  the  various  senses 
As  the  mingling  combinations 
Of  one  all-pervading  substance, 
Whose  potential  living  esse 
Forms  the  life  of  every  creature. 

Having  such  substantial  basis, 

And  ligation  so  potential, 

Binding  all  corporeal  structures 
To  the  inner  life  and  instinct, — 
Having  linked  with  blood  and  muscle 
Vital  forces,  mental  powers, — 
Chained  the  soul’s  substantial  essence 
To  organic  forms  of  being, — 

Many  problems  now  presented 
In  support  of  Darwinism 
Have  a rational  solution 
Otherwise  inexplicable, 

As  the  reader  will  discover 
When  such  questions  are  considered; 
And  without  perverting  reason 
Or  the  laws  of  common  fitness 
As  now  forced  by  evolution, 

If  the  plan  of  transmutation 
Under  natural  selection 
Takes  the  place  of  God  in  nature. 

Many  persons  ask  the  question 
If  the  probable  presumption 
Does  not  favor  Evolution, 


5 


io 


15 


20 


25 


3° 


35 


40 


28 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


When  such  scientists  as  Darwin, 

Huxley,  Haeckel,  Tyndall,  Wallace, 

And  a host  of  other  writers. 

With  a life-long  education 

Fitting  them  to  judge  correctly,  5 

Have  deliberately  and  calmly, 

After  most  laborious  study 
And  dispassionate  researches, 

Weighed  the  facts,  by  tens  of  thousands, 
Almost  with  judicial  fairness  10 

And  with  candor  unexampled, 

Yet  have  finally  been  driven 

By  the  settled  laws  of  science 

To  resort  to  Evolution 

As  the  only  explanation  15 

Of  the  problems  of  existence? — 

Is  it  probable,  they  ask  me, 

That  the  author  of  this  treatise, 

Without  scientific  knowledge 

Or  a naturalist’s  experience,  20 

Can,  by  possible  contingence, 

Make  an  inroad  on  a system, — 

Mar  or  weaken  one  iota 
Doctrines  which  are  thus  established, — 
Which,  amid  the  lore  of  nations  25 

And  scholastic  prejudices, 

Have  for  half  a generation 
Stood  the  shock  of  every  onslaught, 
Though  assailed  by  men  of  science 
Who  have  afterward  surrendered  30 

To  the  theory  in  question, 

Which  in  vain  they  tried  to  jostle? 

I admit  the  strong  presumption 
As  decidedly  against  me 


In  this  most  unequal  contest,  35 

And  the  very  fact  of  knowing 

That  such  odds  must  be  encountered 

In  the  battle  of  a pigmy 

With  brigades  of  armored  giants 

Nerves  and  strengthens  resolution,  40 

With  past  history  proclaiming 

That  it  does  not  always  follow 

That  “ the  race  is  to  the  swiftest, 

Or  the  battle  to  the  strongest;” — 

And  if,  with  such  odds  against  me,  45 
Victory  shall  crown  my  labors, 

Let  me  only  have  the  credit 

Of  the  accident  of  finding 

Not  the  means  to  crush  the  armor 

But  the  joints  where  darts  could  pierce  it.* 


* The  salutary  influence  of  self-reliance  in  such 
discussions  as  this,  though  of  vast  importance, 
should  not,  I confess,  shut  the  eyes  of  a scientific 
investigator  to  the  authority  of  long-established 
theories,  or  the  deliberate  conclusions  of  able  and 
conscientious  men;  yet  no  authority,  however  high 
and  venerated,  should  paralyze  independence  of 
thought  or  interfere  with  the  fearless  expression  of 
carefully  acquired  convictions.  Professor  Tyndall, 
in  the  preface  to  his  third  edition  of  “Sound,” 
says : — 

“ It  [authority]  is  not  only  injurious  but  deadly , 
when  it  corves  the  intellect  into  fear  of  questioning 
it.  But  the  authority  which  so  merits  our  respect 
as  to  compel  us  to  test  and  overthrow  all  its  supports 
before  accepting  a conclusion  opposed  to  it , is  not 
wholly  noxious.  On  the  contrary,  the  disciplines 
it  imposes  may  be  in  the  highest  degree  salutary, 
though  they  may  end,  as  in  the  present  case,  i)t  the 
ruin  of  authority.  The  truth  thus  established  is 
rendered  firmer  by  our  struggles  to  reach  it." 


Chap.  II. 


Prelim  inary  Cons  icier  a lions. 


29 


Chapter  II. 


EVOL  UTION-PRELIMINAR  Y CON  SID  ERA  TIONS 


Darwin’s  Views  of  Great  Importance. — Other  writers  more  Radical,  especially  on  the  Origin  of  First 
Forms. — Haeckel’s  Views  of  Spontaneous  Generation  stated. — Other  Considerations  before  reviewing 
Ilaeckel. — Was  there  a God  to  have  created  the  First  Forms,  as  supposed  by  Darwin  ? — Is  it  reasonable 
to  deny  His  existence? — How  came  Laws  of  Nature  without  a Lawgiver? — Matter  shaped  by  Mind, and 
subservient  to  it. — Mind  originated  out  of  Nothing,  according  to  Haeckel  and  Atheists. — Its  absurdity 
demonstrated. — An  Intelligent  First  Cause  a Necessity. — If  Man  could  evolve  from  a Worm  so  might 
a God. — God’s  Existence  consonant  with  other  things  Eternal,  such  as  Space,  Time,  Matter,  &c. — 
Millions  of  Mysteries  all  around  us  solved  by  admitting  one  great  Mystery. — As  something  must  be 
Inexplicable,  why  not  admit  a God,  which  solves  all  Minor  Problems  ? — Spirit,  Mind,  Will,  and  Instinct, 
Substantial  Entities. 


Darwin’s  authorship  unquestioned 
As  the  founder  of  the  system 
Known  as  “ Modern  Evolution,” 

And  his  recognized  connection 

With  the  now  advanced  position  5 

Which  it  has  attained  in  Europe 

As  a scientific  thesis, 

Make  his  views  the  most  important 
Both  to  reader  and  reviewer; — 

Yet  there  is  a class  of  writers  10 

More  aggressive  still  than  Darwin 
Who  have  taken  up  the  subject 
Of  descent  by  transmutation — 

Converts  to  the  central  idea — 

Since  that  wonderful  production  15 

Called  the  “ Origin  of  Species  ” 

Made  its  most  imposing  advent, — 

Men  with  neither  fear  nor  caution 
As  to  radical  assumptions, 

Who  out-Darwin  Darwinism  20 

In  its  most  advanced  conceptions 
Or  their  boldest  presentations, — 

Though  conceding  all  the  honor 

Of  the  mighty  revolution 

To  his  industry  and  genius,  25 


Yet  regard  his  tame  concession 
Of  an  infinite  “ Creator  ” 

As  the  author  of  the  first  forms 
Fatally  unnecessary, 

Compromisingly  destructive,  30 

And  as  yielding  half  the  contest; — 

Since  a miracle  to  start  with 

Or  direct  interposition 

Through  a personal  creation 

Even  of  a single  mollusk  35 

Would  be  making  such  creation 

Form  the  scientific  basis 

Of  all  future  evolution, — 

Would  in  truth  make  such  creation 
Nothing  but  a fact  of  science  40 

Fundamental  and  intrinsic, 

On  which  facts  of  evolution 
Take  their  rise  and  shape  their  progress; 
Hence  would  be  the  same  in  logic 
As  a practical  concession  45 

That  all  special  acts  of  power 
Such  as  separate  creations 
Of  generic  forms  in  nature, 

If  the  weight  of  proof  sustains  them 
And  our.  reason  acquiesces 


5° 


30 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Must  be  held  as  facts  of  science, 

Just  the  same  as  any  problems 

Or  phenomena  of  nature 

Solved  by  evidence  and  reason 

Take  their  place  as  scientific.  5 

They  assume  that  Darwin’s  logic 
As  to  origin  of  first  forms 
By  direct  almighty  power 
As  a base  for  evolution 
And  for  natural  selection  10 

Is  intrinsically  admitting 
All  his  adversaries  ask  for, — 

Since  the  larva  of  a mollusk 

Is  a mystery  as  wondrous 

And  no  less  a task  on  power  15 

Limitless  in  operation 

Or  on  infinite  conception 

Or  Almighty  execution 

Than  to  form  a horse  or  lion, 

Elephant  or  orang-outang; — 20 

For  the  same  creative  fiat 

Which  could  make  a worm  or  tadpole 

Out  of  inorganic  matter 

Only  needs  to  speak  the  mandate 

To  a larger  mass  of  matter,  25 

And  a wolf  or  anaconda 

Leaps  into  organic  being 

By  the  same  eternal  edict! 

Hence  these  radical  exponents — 

And  of  whom  Professor  Haeckel  30 

Stands  pre-eminently  the  champion — 

Take  the  ground  that  no  creation 

In  the  sense  of  special  power 

And  no  personal  Creator 

Were  required  for  the  first  forms  35 

Or  for  starting  life  or  being, 

But  that  life  originated 
“Out  of  inorganic  matter,” 

And  that  first  forms  were  created 
“ By  spontaneous  generation.”  * 40 

* “ There  is  a grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with 
its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed 
by  the  Creator  into  a few  forms  or  into  one." — 
“ The  similar  framework  of  bones  in  the  hand  of  a 
man,  wing  of  a bat,  fin  of  a porpoise,  and  leg  of  a 
horse,  . . . and  innumerable  other  such  facts,  at 


Haeckel  clearly  claims  that  nature, 

With  her  countless  forms  of  being, 

Is  her  own  originator, — 

That  no  God  was  necessary 

For  the  origin  of  species,  45 

And  that  no  such  useless  being 

Can  be  shown  to  have  existence; 

But  that  all  the  wondrous  structures — 
Forms  of  complex  organism — 

Showing  plan,  with  adaptation  50 

To  environment  and  uses, 

Were  the  planless,  will-less  products 
Of  eternal  laws  and  forces 
Having  no  origination, 

And  no  legislative  power  55 

To  enact  or  organize  them, 

Without  intellect  or  purpose 
Or  intelligent  arrangement 
To  direct  their  operations. 

Thus  with  earth’s  whole  surface  lifeless, 60 
Not  a single  organism 
On  the  land,  in  air  or  water, 

once  explain  themselves  on  the  theory  of  descent 
with  slow  and  slight  successive  modifications.” — “In 
regard  to  the  members  of  each  great  kingdom,  such 
as  vertebrata,  articulata,  &c.,  we  have  distinct  evi- 
dence . . . that  within  each  kingdom  all  the  mem- 
hers  are  descended  from  a single  progenitor — "All 
the  living  forms  of  life  are  the  lineal  descendants  of 
those  which  lived  long  before  the  Cambrian  epoch.” 
— Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  420,  425,  428. 

“ But  a truly  natural  and  consistent  view  of  or- 
ganisms can  assume  no  supernatural  act  of  creation 
for  even  those  simplest  original  forms,  but  only  a 
coming  into  existence  by  spontaneous  generation. 
From  Darwin’s  view  of  the  nature  of  species  we 
arrive  therefore  at  the  natural  theory  of  develop- 
ment.”— “The  fundamental  idea  which  must  neces- 
sarily lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  natural  theories  of 
development,  is  that  of  a gradual  development  of 
all  (even  the  most  perfect)  organisms  out  of  a single 
or  out  of  a very  few  quite  simple  and  quite  imper- 
fect original  beings  which  came  into  existence  not 
by  supernatural  creation  but  by  spontaneous  ^ genera- 
tion, or  archigony,  out  of  inorganic  matter.  Prof. 
HAECKEL,  History  of  Creation,  v.  i.,  pp.  48,  75. 

[Among  the  advanced  thinkers  who  deny  the 
intervention  of  direct  creative  power  are  Buchner, 
Vogt,  Spencer,  and  Strauss;  but  Professor  Haeckel  ’ 
is  the  acknowledged  champion  of  Evolution  on  the 
continent,  and  is  so  regarded  by  Mr.  Darwin  him- 
self.— Pubs.] 


Chap.  II. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


Laws  of  nature  were  so  potent 
Without  having  been  enacted, 
Holding  schemes  so  complicated 
Without  intellect  or  will-force 
To  conceive  or  give  direction, 

And  with  no  creative  power 
Or  Creator  in  existence 
Save  those  senseless  laws  of  motion, 
That  a single  living  creature 
Or  at  most  a few  such  structures 
Were  spontaneously  engendered 
Or  came  bounding  into  being 
By  the  accidental  mingling 
Of  the  molecules  of  matter 
As  the  prototypes  or  parents 
Of  all  future  organisms, 

Each  endowed  with  mental  powers 
And  those  self-preserving  instincts 
Which  direct  all  living  creatures 
By  the  will-less,  lifeless,  mindless 
Principles  innate  in  matter. 

I have  called  it  “ accidental 
Which  the  strictest  use  of  language 
Justifies,  if  laws  of  nature 
And  their  complex  operations 
Have  no  intellect  behind  them, — 
No  designing,  thinking  power, 

And  no  preconceived  arrangement 
To  direct  material  atoms 
How  to  fill  organic  functions, 

And  then  suit  the  organism 
To  environments  of  being. 

It  in  no  way  tends  to  lessen 
Or  avoid  the  difficulty 
Of  design  in  adaptation 
To  assume  that  laws  of  nature 
Rather  than  a chance  commingling 
Brought  such  molecules  together, 
Forming  wondrous  organisms 
Having  complicated  powers, 

And  through  special  combinations 
Suiting  plans  to  ends  and  uses; — 
For  no  law  contains  within  it 
Potency  for  ordination, 

Unless  some  ordaining  power 


Gave  the  element  of  wisdom 
And  capacity  for  planning. 

But  instead  of  laws  containing 
Elements  of  preconception 
Based  on  intellectual  purpose 
And  judicial  acts  of  wisdom 
Which  imply  a God’s  existence 
For  such  prior  legislation 
And  efficient  execution, 

Haeckel  holds  that  simple  matter, 
Designated  “anorgana,” 

Holds  creative  laws  within  it 
Without  prior  mental  powers, 

And  which  blindly  blent  the  atoms 
Happening  to  fall  together, 

Mixing  them  in  such  a manner, 
Giving  them  such  “ varied  motions  ” 
In  relation  to  each  other, 

That  through  inorganic  forces 
Sense  and  voluntary  motion, 

Instinct,  life,  and  mental  powers, 

All  had  thus  been  generated 
Absolutely  out  of  nothing, 

Since  no  life  or  mind  or  instinct 
Had  a previous  existence. 

Thus  were  intellect  and  spirit — 
Life  with  all  its  varied  powers — 
Gendered  without  generator, — 

Since  no  living,  thinking  power, 
Throughout  nature’s  vast  dominions 
Could  have  had  a pre-existence, 
When  some  sudden  freak  of  nature 
By  the  mingling  of  its  forces 
Wrought  this  miracle  of  being 
Out  of  inorganic  matter. 

Yet  so  marvellously  efficient 
And  productive  were  these  creatures 
Thus  spontaneously  engendered, — 
Having  such  an  intuition 
And  vitality  of  structure 
That  they  could  engender  others, 
And  thus  form  new  organisms, — 
Having  such  creative  powers, 
Though  they  never  were  created, — 
With  such  complex  organisms, 


5 

io 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


32 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Yet  without  an  organizer, — 

Having  such  prolific  structures, 

Though  they  never  were  constructed, — 
That  they  could  transfer  their  organs 
\nd  reduplicate  their  bodies,  5 

Instincts,  habits,  mental  powers, 

With  additional  improvements, 

Forming  thus  new  organisms, 

Differing  in  broad  essentials 

From  their  own  peculiar  structures, — 10 

Laying  plans  for  other  organs 

Which  in  time  would  be  developed, 

Spreading  and  divaricating 

Into  complicated  channels, — 

First  varieties,  then  species,  15 

Genera  and  groups  and  orders, 

Tribes  and  families  and  classes, 

Till  at  last  the  earth  was  peopled 

With  her  countless  organisms 

And  all  grades  of  sentient  creatures,  20 

From  the  moneron  or  mollusk 

To  the  upright  human  structure. 

All  this  work  was  thus  accomplished, 

As  we  are  assured  by  Haeckel, 

By  a few  spontaneous  creatures  25 

Which  were  ushered  into  being 
Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

And  no  thanks  to  that  “Creator,” 

Who,  the  author  of  the  system 

Says  so“breathed”  into  those  first  forms  30 

As  to  give  them  vital  powers 

And  capacity  of  structure 

To  originate  new  species 

By  this  law  of  evolution 

Known  as  Natural  Selection.  35 

True,  that  Darwin’s  view  of  species 
Does  not  recognize  creation 
Nor  the  hand  of  God  in  nature, 

Nor  the  slightest  intervention 

Of  His  supervising  power  40 

Since  those  first  few  forms  were  fashioned; 

Neither  does  design  nor  purpose 

Enter  into  Darwin’s  logic 

Since  that  primitive  creation, 


Any  more  than  into  Haeckel’s  45 

Atheistical  assumptions, 

So  consistently  propounded 

By  this  more  advanced  exponent 

Of  materialistic  dogmas 

Or  outspoken  pantheism,  50 

As  embodied  in  the  thesis 

Of  “spontaneous  generation.” 

So  the  radical  position 
Taken  by  such  men  as  Haeckel, 

Strauss  and  Spencer,  Vogt  and  Buchner,  55 
Absolutely  harmonizes 
With  the  theory  of  Darwin, 

Barring  one  spasmodic  effort 
Of  that  infinite  Creator, 

Who,  when  having  made  a mollusk  60 
Or  a moneron,  for  instance, 

As  the  prototype  of  species, 

Then  retires  absolutely 
From  all  active  part  in  nature, 

Just  as  literally  and  truly  65 

As  if  He  had  not  existed. 

As  this  question  of  the  first  forms,, 

Or  how  life  originated, 

Is  of  paramount  importance, 

Lying  at  the  very  threshold  70 

Of  the  law  of  evolution, — 

That  is  whether  primal  beings 
Took  their  forms  and  organisms 
By  miraculous  creation, 

First  through  infinite  conception,  75 

Carried  by  design  and  wisdom 
Into  special  acts  of  power, 

As  distinctly  taught  by  Darwin, 

That  “ survival  of  the  fittest  ” 

Might  have  something  to  select  from. — 80 
Or  were  formed,  as  Haeckel  teaches. 

“ By  spontaneous  generation  ” 

“ Out  of  inorganic  matter,” — 

I propose  to  treat  this  question, 

Prior  to  reviewing  Darwin  85 

And  his  complicated  system, 

And  shall  test  Professor  Haeckel’s 
Most  extraordinary  idea 
That  a lump  of  pure  albumen 


Chap.  II. 


Prelim  inary  Considerations. 


33 


Grew  from  inorganic  matter, 

And,  by  freak  of  nature’s  forces, 
Happened  to  become  a living, 

Moving,  sentient  protoplasm, 

With  organic  form  and  structure,  5 

Capable  of  reproduction 
And  of  voluntary  movement, 

All  through  inorganic  causes 

Such,  as  capillary  motion 

And  molecular  attraction.  10 

Prior  to  directly  coming 
To  this  most  astounding  problem, 

So  aggressively  presented 

By  this  radical  exponent 

Of  progressive  Darwinism,  15 

Other  most  essential  questions 

Seem  to  claim  consideration, — 

Though  they  may  appear  digressive 
To  the  readers  of  this  treatise 
Till  their  proper  application  20 

Is  unfolded  by  the  sequel. 

Prominent  among  these  questions 
Is  the  one  directly  bearing 
On  the  nature  of  existence: 

Whether  incorporeal  being,  25 

Which  we  term  the  soul  or  spirit, 

Mental  powers,  life  and  instinct, 

Is  an  entity,  a something 
Which  can  be  conceived  or  thought  of 
As  a substantive  existence.  30 

Then  to  demonstrate  such  being, 

Or  such  incorporeal  selfhood, 

Thus  intangible  to  senses 
And  material  tests  of  science, 

I assume  that  all  the  forces  35 

Which  pervade  the  realms  of  nature, 
Whatsoever  name  we  give  them, 

Though  beyond  our  comprehension 
And  beyond  all  tests  of  science 
As  to  their  essential  atoms,  40 

Must  be  absolutely  substance 
Or  attenuated  matter, — 

Whose  tenuity,  so  wondrous, 

Places  them  beyond  the  purview 


Of  materialistic  ideas  45 

And  corporeal  views  of  matter. 

Then,  beyond  substantial  forces 
And  the  individual  essence 
Of  all  incorporeal  being, 

Is  there  such  substantial  Esse  50 

Or  such  entity  of  selfhood 

As  the  ultimate  causation 

From  which  proximate  conditions 

Flow  like  emanating  streamlets 

From  some  vast  exhaustless  fountain? — 55 

Do  the  lighted  torch  of  reason 

And  the  soul’s  noetic  instinct 

Lead  us  to  such  self-existence 

And  infinitude  of  Ego 

As  the  primal  cause  of  causes,  60 

Though  unknowable  in  essence 

And  unthinkable  in  nature, 

Competent  to  furnish  data 
For  those  primal  forms  of  being. 

As  assumed  in  Darwin’s  system? — 65 

Is  it  not  in  strict  accordance 
With  the  logical  deductions 
Of  effects  as  joined  to  causes 
That  some  intellectual  ego, 

As  the  primitive  causation — 70 

One  intrinsically  self-potent 
And  eternally  self-conscious — 

Should  thus  give  primordial  impulse, 
Rather  than  that  laws  of  nature 
Which  had  never  been  enacted — 75 

Without  will  or  ordination 
And  devoid  of  self-existence 
Or  an  intellectual  ego — - 
From  which  life  and  mental  powers 
Were  essentially  excluded — 80 

Should  produce  a living  structure 
Through  atomic  laws  and  forces, 

With  its  startling  adaptations, 

Capable  of  reproducing 

All  its  wondrous  mechanism,  ?5 

And  of  finally  creating 

Through  survival  of  the  fittest 

This  vast  universe  of  structures! 


34 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


Then  if  God  be  deemed  essential 
To  the  origin  of  being 
In  its  physical  relations, 

Does  it  harmonize  with  reason 

That  corporeal  organisms  5 

Thus  ingeniously  constructed, 

Joined  to  incorporeal  powers 
Such  as  vital  force  and  instinct, 

Could  have  come  without  causation 
Equally  substantial  essence? — 10 

If  not,  then  is  God  a substance, 

From  the  innermost  to  outmost 
Of  IDs  attributes  and  nature, — 

From  which  substantive  existence, 

From  the  physical  to  mental,  15 

Has  received  primordial  impulse. 

Thus,  before  reviewing  Haeckel 
And  spontaneous  generation, 

Or  the  postulates  of  Darwin 

In  support  of  evolution,  20 

I propose  to  show  from  reason 

And  analogies  of  science 

Gleaned  from  forces  all  around  us 

Never  dreamt  of  as  substantial, 

That  the  life  and  mental  powers  25 

Of  all  living  organisms 
Must  be  entities  as  real 
As  the  structural  arrangements 
Through  which  life  is  manifested; — 

Are  in  fact  substantial  essence  30 

And  invisible  formations, 

With  intrinsic  organisms, 

Just  as  truly  as  the  kernel 
Is  the  genuine  existence, 

Emblematically  symboled  35 

By  the  pericarp  which  hides  it; — 

And  that  hence  the  generation 

Of  such  mental  living  essence 

Out  of  inorganic  matter 

By  a lifeless  law  of  nature  40 

Which  had  never  been  enacted 

Or  made  potent  for  such  process, 

Is  an  error  so  enormous 
And  revolting  to  the  reason 


That  it  seems  its  simple  statement  45 
Should  contain  its  refutation. 

Let  the  reader  ask  the  question— 

Does  it  indicate  true  wisdom 

To  deny  such  first  causation 

As  the  fountain  of  all  being  50 

From  our  puerile  conceptions 

Of  the  mysteries  of  nature, 

When  the  simplest  operation 

In  the  vegetable  kingdom 

Stands  a problem  of  defiance  55 

To  the  most  sagacious  thinkers? — 

When  the  very  mental  power 

Which  assails  such  first  causation 

As  an  entity  of  being 

Contradicts  its  own  misgivings  60 

By  the  thought  which  shapes  the  question, — 

Recognizing  such  existence 

In  its  own  self-conscious  reason 

Seeking  adequate  causation, 

Since  no  stream  without  a fountain  65 
Has  a rational  existence, — 

Thus  admitting  while  ignoring 
Such  primordial  living  essence 
By  its  stultifying  logic. 

Is  it  not  presumptuous  folly,  70 

To  attribute  laws  so  wondrous, 

Multifold  in  operation, 

And  so  recondite  in  working, — 

Which,  in  cryptic  ways  unnumbered, 

Ramify  through  all  the  tissues  75 

Of  organic  forms  in  nature 

To  no  legislative  power 

Higher  than  the  page  which  holds  them, 

And  maintain  the  weak  assumption 

That  material  combinations  So 

Of  the  molecules  of  matter 

Make  and  execute  the  edicts 

Of  the  power  which  combines  them?  - 

That  the  atoms  thus  uniting 

Into  forms  and  organisms  85 

By  molecular  attraction 

Constitute  their  own  primordial 

Mode  of  voluntary  motion, 


Ciiap.  II. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


35 


Causing  by  their  interaction 
New  enactments  and  conditions, 
Absolutely  laws  and  forces 
Which  before  had  no  existence, 

Since  they  come  from  vital  motions — 5 

Sense  combined  with  mental  powers — 
Which  had  been  originated 
Indisputably  from  nothing 
By  spontaneous  generation? 

Do  not  laws  of  force  and  motion  10 
And  affinities  of  matter 
Seen  in  living  organisms 
And  in  pure  corporeal  substance 
Which  defy  our  comprehension, 

From  the  complicated  structures  15 

Of  ephemerons  and  midges 

And  the  tiniest  motes  in  sunbeams 

To  the  cycling  suns  and  planets 

Tell  the  same  consistent  story 

Of  cosmogony  of  being? — 20 

Point  to  but  the  one  solution 

Of  all  finite  mechanism, 

In  that  infinite  causation 

As  the  legislative  power 

By  which  law  became  efficient, — 25 

From  which  organizing  mandates 

Through  the  interacting  forces 

Brought  the  vital  emanation 

To  primordial  forms  of  being? 

It  would  indicate  the  absence  30 

Of  true  ratiocination 
To  attribute  mental  powers, 

Senses  and  the  vital  functions, 

With  their  complex  operations 

Shown  in  all  organic  creatures  35 

To  the  accidental  union 

As  by  chance  they  came  together, — 

Of  the  molecules  or  granules 
Drawn  by  some  designless  impulse 
Out  of  inorganic  matter,  40 

Which  by  accident  had  drifted 
From  amorphous  realms  of  chaos, 

Without  intellect  to  plan  it 
Or  prevision  to  appoint  it, — 

Relegating  thus  to  matter  45 


That  which  fashions  and  controls  it, 

As  experience  assures  us, — 

Claiming  for  insentient  atoms 
Attributes  which  shape  and  use  them, 
Changing  them  to  forms  of  beau  y. — 50 

Giving  lifeless  anorgana 
Powers  which  now  utilize  it 
By  subservient  adaptation, 

As  attest  the  least  utensil 

Which  the  thought  of  man  has  fashioned  55 

Up  to  highest  mechanism 

Seen  in  works  of  engineering — 

Ships  and  steamboats,  mills  and  railroads, 
Churches,  palaces,  and  cities, 

Statues,  paintings,  and  inventions,  60 
All  the  absolute  production 
Of  that  incorporeal  substance 
Known  as  thought  or  mental  power. 

Hence,  if  atoms  by  uniting 
Hold  within  their  combination  65 

All  the  power  which  combines  them 
In  defiance  of  all  reasons 
Drawn  from  cinematic  science, 

Which  makes  motion  secondary 
To  dynamic  impulsation, — 70 

If,  in  other  words,  the  creature 
Has  within  its  organism 
Laws  of  demiurgic  being, 

With  intrinsic  vital  forces 

Ultimate  for  reproduction,  75 

And  those  chemical  conditions 

Which  change  aliment  to  fire, 

Caloricity  to  motion, 

Motion  into  will  and  reason, 

With  capacity  for  action  80 

And  discretionary  power 
To  investigate  the  process 
And  review  the  work  accomplished, 

And  with  innate  apperception 
Sit  upon  itself  in  judgment,  85 

Without  laws  from  higher  sources 
Than  its  own  corporeal  structure, 

As  philosophers  like  Leibnitz 
And  materialists  like  Haeckel 
So  dogmatically  assure  us,  90 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


36 

Then  there  is  no  valid  reason 
Why  creation  with  its  wonders 
Should  not  be  in  operation 
Now  as  in  the  primal  epoch, 

When  spontaneous  laws  and  forces 
Started  life  by  generating 
Forms  from  inorganic  matter. 

If  such  laws  were  ever  potent 
There  seems  no  sufficient  data 
Showing  that  material  forces 
Have  been  nullified  or  weakened, 

Or  an  adequate  presumption 
Why  such  similar  conditions 
Should  not  now  environ  matter, 

And  supply  such  demonstrations 
As  new  forms  and  organisms 
Springing  into  sentient  being 
Daily,  hourly,  around  us; — 

For  molecular  attraction 
Is  to  all  intents  as  active 
As  it  was  along  the  ages 
Of  the  carboniferous  period, 

Since  those  laws  are  all  eternal. 
Hence,  no  shadow  of  a reason, 

If  such  circumstances  happen 
Without  prior  plan  or  wisdom, 

Can  be  furnished  by  these  writers 
Why  corpuscular  attraction 
With  its  cosmogonic  power, 

Should  not  now  be  organizing 
Out  of  inorganic  matter 
Complicated  forms  and  structures, 
Having  voluntary  motions 
And  instinctive  traits  and  habits, 

In  all  stages  of  progression — 

Some  commencing,  some  perfected, 
Some  with  organs  half  developed, 
Struggling  in  blastemal  crudeness, 

As  when  rudimental  wing-bones 

Dangled  from  a reptile’s  body 

In  progressive  organism 

Toward  the  bird  as  now  developed, — 

All  through  agencies  inherent 

In  atomic  laws  and  forces, 

Without  following  the  schedule 


And  routine  so  antiquated 
For  organic  conformation, — 

Chained  by  generative  process 
To  primordial  norms  and  models, 

Ere  the  most  imperfect  being  5' 

Or  the  simplest  moving  creature 
Can  be  fashioned  with  a body 
Or  assume  the  living  function. 

Credulous  must  be  the  thinker 
Who  can  thus  make  dust  deific — 55 

Entheastically  potent — 

To  escape  a real  causation 
Adequate  to  meet  such  problems, — 

Who  can  by  atomic  forces 

Apotheosize  gross  matter,  60 

Making  it  the  God  of  nature 

Though  devoid  of  thought  or  instinct, — 

Changing  phoromonic  impulse 

Into  voluntary  motion, — 

Scouting  ultimate  causation,  65 

With  its  prior  life  and  reason, 

While  proclaiming  dirt  as  gospel 
And  the  soul  but  protoplasm, — 

Carving  thus  the  human  spirit, 

With  its  marvellous  thinking  powers,  70 
Out  of  inorganic  limestone, 

Or  albumen  charged  with  carbon, 

By  unconscious  laws  and  forces, 

Which  these  writers  treat  so  glibly, — 
Mysteries  so  inconsistent  75 

With  our  reason  and  our  senses, 

And  so  utterly  repugnant 

To  analogies  of  science 

As  to  cause  the  veriest  skeptic 

To  recoil  from  such  assumptions  80 

While  denying  God’s  existence, — 

All  because  we  can  not  grasp  it 
As  a tangible  conception, 

Or  because  imagination 
Fails  to  explicate  the  problem  85 

How  a God  could  have  existence 
Without  having  been  created! 

If  the  germ  of  life  is  wanting 
In  one  isolated  atom, 

And  no  sign  of  vital  motion  90 


5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  II. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


37 


Can  be  truly  predicated 
Of  one  molecule  of  matter, 

With  no  intervening  power 
Or  intelligent  causation 
Having  life  for  interfusion, 

Would  two  atoms  brought  together 
Or  their  diatomic  union 
Give  results  possessed  by  neither? — 
Would  not  atoms  thus  united 
By  unconscious  laws  and  forces 
Be  intrinsically  quiescent, — 

Without  life  as  absolutely 
As  before  they  came  together? 

If  so,  would  not  ten  or  twenty 
Or  a hundred  or  a thousand 
Ora  hundred  thousand  million 
Atoms  without  life  or  instinct, 

Such  as  constitute  our  bodies, 

Still  be  inorganic  matter, — 

Senseless,  motionless,  and  lifeless, 

As  so  many  grains  of  sandstone? 

If  it  should  be  claimed  that  nature 
Holds  potential  force  in  matter 
Through  molecular  attraction, 

And  that  forces  thus  inherent 
Must  include  within  their  meaning 
And  their  various  modes  of  action 
As  applied  to  organisms, 

Intellect,  or  mental  powers, 

Through  which  vital  force  or  reason 
Can  result  by  combination, 

As  distinctly  taught  by  Haeckel; — 
Then  conclusively  I answer 
That  is  what  we  term  Jehovah , 

Or  the  great  primeval  Esse, — 

Since  the  very  word  and  idea 
When  applied  to  vital  functions 
And  volition’s  conscious  will-force 
Must  have  equipollent  meaning; — 
For  this  potency  primeval, 

Whether  prior  to  creation 
Or  incited  into  action 
By  His  attributes  eternal 
Must  remain  the  vital  essence 
Underlying,  over-ruling 


Every  molecule  or  unit 
In  the  universe  of  matter, 

While  this  same  potential  selfhood 
Must  be  also  self-existent, 

As  intelligence  substantial,  50 

Living,  reasoning,  and  acting, 

From  a fountain  of  self-being 

Thus  as  ultimate  causation 
And  beyond  all  human  concept 
He  becomes  no  less  a real  55 

Entity  of  self-existence, 

Since  it  makes  Him  co-eternal 
With  the  elements  of  matter, — 

Thus  a mystery  no  greater 

Than  that  matter  is  eternal,  60 

Or  that  nature’s  cryptic  forces, 

As  insisted  on  by  Haeckel, 

Should  have  never  had  commencement. 

Here  materialism  answers 
This  great  ramifying  question  65 

In  the  single  word  potential, — 

Solves  the  cosmogonic  problem 
By  its  own  self-abnegation, 

Through  a cause  outside  of  matter, 

Which  contains  all  vital  function  70 

And  mentality  in  essence; — 

Hence  the  logical  deduction 
From  that  underlying  basis  ' 

That  the  life  and  mental  powers 

Of  all  conscious  organisms  75 

Come  as  germs  or  emanations 

From  the  central  source  or  fountain 

Of  this  undefined  causation 

Is  in  harmony  with  reason, 

Rather  than  that  conscious  impulse  80 

Could  have  been  conferred  by  matter, 

Or  had  origin  from  causes, 

Or  from  force  beneath  the  creature, — 

Is  the  rational  conclusion 

Which  unbiassed  thought  endorses,  85 

Consentaneous  to  science 

And  the  elements  of  being 

As  biology  unfolds  them; — 

For  it  matters  not  what  data 
Paleontologic  records  90 


5 

10 

*5 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


38 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Foist  into  the  controversy, 

Or  what  cosmoplastic  doctrine 
Geologic  facts  may  warrant 
As  to  periodic  changes, 

Systems,  strata,  and  deposits,  5 

Or  what  proofs  are  shown  by  science 
Of  the  earth’s  unnumbered  ages, — 
Thought,  intelligence,  and  reason 
Now  exist  in  fact  as  really, 

And  of  which  the  mind  as  fully  10 

Takes  cognition  as  of  matters 
Cosmothetic  in  their  structure; — 

And  as  entity  of  being 

Must  have  had  origination 

Or  some  definite  commencement  15 

Previous  to  which  all  matter 

Must  have  ranked  as  anorgana, 

Mind,  as  cause,  was  therefore  prior 
To  material  organism; — 

For  as  nought  can  come  from  nothing,  20 
Axiomatically  admitted 
By  philosophy  and  science, 

There  must  be  a real  fountain 
Of  intelligent  existence, 

Vital  force,  and  mental  substance,  25 

Whence  have  sprung  the  human  spirit 
And  all  lower  grades  of  instinct. 

And  here  mental  effort  fails  us 
In  our  circumscribed  endeavors 
To  achieve  substantial  progress, — 30 

Struggling  thought  recoils  with  stupor 
When  confronted  with  the  problem 
Of  that  ultimate  causation 
To  which  proximate  conditions 
Bear  no  searchable  relation;  35 

And  the  intellect  stares  blankly, 

Equally  amazed  with  wonder 
At  the  simplest  life  in  nature 
If  a God  did  not  create  it, 

Which  is  just  as  much  a marvel  40 

As  a scientific  problem, 

And  as  truly  calculated 
To  confound  all  human  wisdom 
As  the  infinite  enigma 


How  a God  originated  45 

Or  how  time  and  space  are  bounded. 

But  if  life  originated 
In  the  simplest  organism 
By  spontaneous  generation 
And  the  marvellous  sentient  nature  50 

Of  the  tiniest  animalcule, 

So  beyond  our  comprehension 
Could  spring  up  without  an  author — 
Without  prior  life  or  being — 
Independently  of  purpose  55 

Or  of  preconceived  arrangement 
To  direct  the  living  forces 
In  its  homogeneous  structure, 

It  seems  not  a whit  more  puzzling 

That  a God  be  self-created  60 

Or  spontaneously  engendered 

Out  of  inorganic  chaos 

Or  from  nebulae  primeval; — 

For  we  can  not  fix  a limit 
To  spontaneous  generation,  63 

If  we  recognize  such  process 
And  such  thought  be  once  admitted 
As  a probable  assumption, 

Whether  it  produce  a mollusk, 

Mouse,  or  wolf,  or  human  being, — 70 

Whether  it  make  mind  or  instinct 
Or  the  voluntary  motion 
Of  a money  on  or  monkey, — 

Whether  such  spontaneous  action 
Centre  in  a God  or  angel  75 

Or  the  smallest  animalcule. 

Now  since  something  must  be  granted, — 
Something  living,  moving,  thinking, 
Absolutely  self-existent, 

Or  the  primal  life  in  nature  80 

As  the  impulse  leading  onward 
To  all  future  organisms, — 

Shall  it  be  a God  or  mollusk 
Which  shall  thus  receive  the  glory? 

This  is  pertinently  the  question  85 

As  aggressively  suggested 
By  the  more  advanced  exponents 
Of  progressive  evolution. 

From  the  rational  deductions 


Chap.  II. 


Preliminary  Considerations 


39 


Drawn  from  all  enlightened  reason 
And  the  laws  of  common  fitness, 

Is  it  not  supremely  worthy 
Of  those  all-pervading  forces 
Which  appear  to  be  eternal, — 5 

Of  unbounded  space,  for  instance, 

And  duration’s  endless  cycles 
Without  start  or  termination, — 

That  this  uncreated  something, 

Impulse,  potency,  or  being,  10 

Since  one  must  be  uncreated, 

Should  be  also  self-eternal, 

With  the  attributes  of  being, 

With  omniscient  comprehension, 

With  omnipotence  Of  power,  15 

And  a conscious  omnipresence? — 

Does  not  this  sublime  conception, 

And  would  not  such  rationale 

As  an  infinite  Creator 

And  the  fountain  of  all  being,  20 

From  whom  life  has  emanated 

To  all  living  organisms, 

Harmonize  with  man’s  best  instincts 
And  his  nobler  intuitions? — 

Would  not  such  stupendous  concept,  25 
Though  beyond  all  comprehension, 
Logically  agree  in  grandeur 
With  eternity  of  matter 
As  to  elemental  essence, 

Which  true  science  has  conceded,  30 
With  eternity  of  forces, 

Space,  and  infinite  duration? — 

And  does  not  the  same  deduction 

Follow  from  all  laws  of  fitness 

That  this  intellectual  power,  35 

All-pervading  and  coeval 

With  so  many  things  eternal 

Should  be  energy  substantial, 

And  embody  all  our  ideas 

Of  that  personal  Creator  40 

Which  theology  inculcates, 

Since  some  primitive  existence 

From  which  life  originated 

In  corporeal  organisms 

In  effect  is  postulated  45 


By  the  necessary  meaning 
Of  spontaneous  generation , — 

As  the  latter  word  is  nonsense 
And  a simple  contradiction 
If  there  be  no  generator 2 50 

It  falls  far  below  our  reason 
And  our  common  apperception 
That  some  worms  were  self-created 
Or  spontaneously  engendered 
Out  of  inorganic  matter,  55 

Without  prior  life  or  wisdom 
To  arrange  the  lifeless  atoms 
And  direct  the  vital  forces, — 

And  that  from  such  annulata, 

By  survival  of  the  fittest,  60 

Have  evolved  or  been  created 
Human  intellect  and  spirit, 

Rather  than  the  grander  problem 
That  an  infinite  Creator — 

Infinitely  greater,  nobler,  65 

As  the  primal  self-existence — 

Formed  the  finite  and  the  lower 
Must  recoiling  human  reason 
Be  coerced  to  view  the  insect 
As  its  true  originator,  70 

From  whose  low  organic  structure 
Limited  and  simple  instincts 
Have  been  gradually  developed 
Man’s  perfected  organism 
And  far-reaching  mental  powers,  75 

When  the  intellect  of  Newton 
And  the  skill  of  all  the  chemists 
And  philosophers  united 
Who  now  live  or  ever  did  live 
Could  not  form  the  simplest  insect — 80 

Could  not  make  one  hair  or  feather — 
With  the  whole  material  storehouse 
Of  the  universe  to  choose  from 
If  man’s  intellectual  powers 
Have  been  formed  by  transmutation  85 
From  the  almost  lifeless  polyp 
Through  survival  of  the  fittest, 

May  not  men  by  evolution 
Be  developed  into  angels? 

God  can  be  but  little  farther  90 


40 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


From  the  man  than  man  from  polyp. 
Hence,  why  not  a God  develop 
Finally  from  worms  and  larvae  ? — 

Thus  reversing  nature’s  programme 
By  this  most  enormous  folly  5 

Of  spontaneous  generation 
Helped  by  natural  selection. 

Is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom, 

Therefore,  and  of  modest  reason, 

In  discussing  laws  of  being,  10 

Origin  of  life  and  instinct, 

And  the  problems  of  causation, 

To  assume  a great  eternal 
Self-existent  vital  power 
As  the  architect  of  nature,  15 

Since  some  hypothetic  dogma 
Must  be  settled  on  as  final, 

Or  as  ultimate  conclusion, 

And  beyond  which  none  dare  venture; 

In  discussing  final  questions  20 

And  the  ultimates  of  ideas 
Mind  is  limited  in  action 
To  those  thinkable  conceptions 
Which  are  tangible  and  real, — 

Meeting  sensual  conditions  25 

Suited  to  our  mental  concepts; 

And  though  science  may  determine 
All  kinetic  laws  of  motion, 

Back  through  interacting  forces 
To  original  impulsion, — 30 

Dynamometers  may  measure 
All  inherent  powers  of  matter, 

Attrahents,  magnetic  currents 
Natural  or  artificial, 

Yet  there  is  no  explanation  35 

Of  original  dynamics 

Or  why  steel  becomes  a magnet, 

Or  the  nature  of  its  power 
Over  distant  bars  of  iron, 

Nor  one  final  explanation  40 

Of  the  elements  of  motion 
Underlying  every  atom 
Of  this  universal  cosmos. 

Man,  with  all  his  boasted  science, 

Has  not  one  remote  conception  45 


Of  the  complicated  powers 

As  to  motile  roots  of  action 

Which  give  voluntary  motion 

To  the  crudest  living  creature 

Or  more  complicated  being,  50 

I care  not  how  small  and  simple 

Or  how  vast  and  heterogeneous, 

Whether  microscopic  monads — 

Hundreds  in  a drop  of  water — 

Or  the  ponderous  physeters  55 

Sporting  in  the  Arctic  Ocean; — 

While  the  same  applies  to  atoms 
And  the  forces  which  unite  them, 

Linking  molecules  together, 

From  the  meteoric  globules  60 

Cycling  in  the  paths  of  comets 
To  the  whirling  suns  and  centres 
Through  the  vast  sidereal  heavens 
Round  which  planets  trace  their  orbits. 

Though  a mystery  confronts  us  63 

In  each  ultimate  assumption 
Howsoever  small  the  object. 

Equal  in  our  blind  condition 
To  that  higher  rank  of  problem 
Which  the  authorship  of  being  70 

Or  primordial  cause  embraces, 

Still  it  seems  the  more  consistent 
That  the  latter  be  accepted 
As  a compromise  solution 
Of  all  minor  groups  of  problems.  75 

It,  with  all  the  thoughts  included, 

Still  is  but  a single  problem, 
Overwhelmingly  majestic 
Though  it  be  in  all  its  aspects, 

And  though  far  beyond  conception,  80 
While  the  universe  embracing, 

It  comports  with  all  the  nobler 
Faculties  of  human  nature, 

Worthy  of  creation’s  wonders — 

Worthy  to  be  deemed  mysterious;  85 
And  though  vain  to  try  to  fathom 
Or  to  even  scan  the  surface 
Of  a thought  so  far  above  us, — 

Yet  such  recondite  assumption, 

Which  involves  all  minor  questions,  90 


CiiAr.  II. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


4i 


Must  seem  every  way  consistent 
With  the  unity  of  nature 
As  opposed  to  ditheism 
Or  a duarchy  of  power, 

Shining  in  harmonious  luster  5 

In  the  grand  equilibration 
Seen  in  planetary  movements 
And  in  every  heart-pulsation; — 

While  if  such  a supposition 

With  unknowable  surroundings  10 

Be  rejected  for  a lower 

View  of  nature’s  complications, 

Or  the  pantheistic  idea 

That  organic  forms  of  being 

Have  their  adequate  causation  15 

And  their  forces  all  within  them — 

Are  in  fact  their  own  creators — 

And  thus  absolutely  making 
God  but  nature  personated, 

Then  must  mysteries  by  millions  20 

Equally  occult  and  wondrous 
Meet  us  at  each  turn  of  vision : 

In  corpuscular  attraction 
And  each  corpuscle  attracted, — 

In  each  worm  or  animalcule  25 

And  the  countless  organisms 
In  the  chain  of  sentient  beings, 

Each  mysterious  as  the  Godhead 
Individually  considered, 

And  whose  recondite  enigmas  30 

Viewed  as  abstract  propositions 
Equally  confound  our  reason, 

Since  beyond  our  comprehension; — 

While  that  ultimate  assumption 

Of  one  infinite  Creator  35 

As  the  cause  of  all  causation — 

Grand  and  worthy  of  His  creatures 
And  of  all  the  minor  problems 
Seen  in  proximate  conditions — 

Worthy  of  man’s  highest  powers  40 

And  his  loftiest  conceptions — 

Sweeps  away  the  countless  riddles 
And  their  fathomless  enigmas, 

Merging  all  their  cryptic  problems 
Into  one  no  more  astounding,  45 


If  the  mind  attempts  to  solve  them — 
Making  one  stupendous  mystery 
Solve  the  millions  upon  millions, — 

Each  of  which,  in  wildering  mazes, 

Blinds,  embrangles,  and  confuses — 50 

Taunts  with  mocking  contumely — 

Those  who,  clinging  to  the  lower 
Fail  to  grasp  the  higher  problem. 

How  inestimably  better 
And  how  much  more  satisfying  55 

Is  this  simplified  conclusion 
That  one  great,  eternal  problem, 

As  the  final  commentary 

Of  the  universe  of  matter 

And  the  realm  of  mental  powers,  60 

Solves  all  minor  propositions 

Even  to  the  smallest  atoms 

And  their  relative  connection, 

Than  to  deal  with  every  granule 

On  the  pantheistic  idea,  65 

In  its  separate  condition, — 

Than  to  deal  with  force  and  motion 
And  their  infinite  “ persistence,” 

All  “ unthinkable  ” in  essence 

As  to  ultimate  relations  70 

And  their  ramified  commingling, — 

“ Inconceivable  ” as  ideas, 

And  “ unknowable  ” if  followed 

But  a step  beyond  the  purview 

Of  our  limited  sensations,  75 

So  elaborately  argued 

In  the  works  of  Herbert  Spencer; 

While  at  last  we  end  the  problem 
In  the  mind  itself  as  nothing 
Capable  of  apperception  80 

Or  an  ultimate  solution, — 

Having  no  essential  nature 
And  no  substantive  existence, — 

Nothing  but  result  of  motion 
In  the  varied  combinations  85 

Of  the  molecules  of  matter 
Which  compose  the  organism, 

So  distinctly  taught  by  Haeckel; — 
Neither  personal  nor  ego 
As  an  entity  of  being, 


90 


42 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Or  if  personal  and  ego 
With  no  power  to  conceive  it 
In  its  substantive  relation 
To  corporeal  organism, — 

Knowing  mistily  and  vaguely  5 

That  the  human  mind  knows  nothing 
In  the  real  sense  of  knowing. 

True  it  is,  as  Spencer  teaches, 

That  our  highest  mental  concept 
Of  time,  space,  or  even  matter,  10 

If  the  mind  attempts  to  bring  them 
To  an  ultimate  conception 
Ends  in  ultimate  confusion, 

Bringing  thought  to  total  nescience; — 

But  let  ultimates  of  substance,  15 

Space  and  limitless  duration, 

And  the  incorporeal  forces 
Symbolize  the  living  essence, — 

Stand  as  attributes  of  being, 

Unknown  quantities  of  power  20 

Or  “ unknowable  ” causation, 

Then  the  dianoetic  impulse 
Of  the  soul  can  have  a basis 


Which  at  least  begins  with  something 
In  whatever  thought  contemplates, 
Even  though  it  end  in  nothing 
Save  a vague  and  misty  concept. 

Then  the  mysteries  and  problems 
Which  surround  all  organisms 
And  of  which  each  page  of  nature 
Holds  the  untranslated  record, 

Unified  by  being  blended 
In  one  concrete  aggregation — 

Massed  synthetically  together 
In  one  rational  conception — 

Of  which  attributes  and  adjuncts 
Of  an  infinite  causation 
Form  the  hypothetic  basis, 

Give  the  mind  by  duly  poising 
Rest  from  infinite  enigmas 
Each  devoid  of  explication 
As  an  isolated  problem, — 

But  which  compromised  by  blending 
Lower  with  the  higher  concept 
Marks  the  same  grand  consummation, 
Making  one  stupendous  problem 
Solve  all  mysteries  in  nature. 


Chap.  III. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


43 


Chapter  III. 


PRELIMINAR  Y CONSIDERA  TIONS.— (Continued. ) 


The  Problem  of  Motives  and  Surrounding  Circumstances  controlling  the  Will. — Its  Fatalistic  Ten- 
dency apparent,  making  Men  but  Puppets. — Its  Absurdity  shown  in  it's  Bearing  and  Fruits. — Illus- 
trations suggested,  showing  the  Ruinous  Results  which  would  follow. — Without  Freedom  of  Choice  as 
between  Motives,  all  distinction  between  Right  and  Wrong  obliterated. — The  End  predicted,  should 
the  Doctrine  be  Universally  Taught  and  Practised. — Recurring  to  the  Probable  Origin  of  Being. — 
Life  traced  back  to  the  Invisible  Fountain  of  Causation. — Personal  and  Substantial  Ego  must  come 
from  a Substantial  Fountain  of  Life  and  Mentality. — All  Matter  being  Indestructible,  so  all  Life  and 
Mind. — God  the  Original  Fountain,  to  which  all  Life  and  Mind  will  return. — A New  Theory  of  the 
Relation  between  Men  and  Lower  Animals  foreshadowed. — The  Substantial  Nature  of  all  the  Forces, 
as  well  as  of  Mind  and  Life. — Magnetic  Fluid  a Real  Substance,  or  Attenuated  Matter. — Science  an 
Uncertain  Basis  for  denying  the  Existence  of  God  and  the  Substantial  Entity  of  the  Spirit. — No  Rea- 
sonable Excuse  for  Doubting  the  Existence  of  a God  or  a Future  Life. — Materialism  defined. 


It  seems  wholly  insufficient 
To  assume  the  mind  as  nothing 
But  the  complex  interaction 
Of  atomic  combinations 
From  molecular  attraction  5 

On  the  ground  that  will  can  only 
Act  when  forced  by  strongest  motive , 

And  that  mind  is  actuated 

Only  by  the  greatest  impulse 

Or  most  powerful  incentive  10 

Moving  choice  by  circumstances, 

Just  as  attrahents  are  governed 
Where  magnetic  force  concentrates 
And  produces  most  attraction. 

Let  us  for  a single  moment  15 

View  this  Fatalistic  dogma 
That  our  rational  endeavors — 

Resolution  and  volition — 

Can  result  alone  from  motive , 

And  that  force  thus  predisposing  20 

In  determining  our  actions 
Chains  the  purpose  to  incentive 
Till  free  agency  is  wholly 


Neutralized  and  metamorphosed 

From  volitional  direction  25 

To  passivity  of  action. 

Is  it  true  that  every  movement 
Which  we  now  term  voluntary 
Is  beyond  control  of  will-force, 

And  that  what  we  call  volition  30 

Is  but  practical  coercion 
Of  surrounding  circumstances 
By  which  all  our  acts  are  governed? — 
Which  we  have  no  part  in  forming 
Unless  other  circumstances  35 

In  some  other  way  coerce  us 
And  thus  shape  the  new  conditions? — 
Thus  while  seeming  free  in  action 
To  decide  and  shape  our  conduct 
Choosing  from  our  simple  will-force  40 
What  discretionary  judgment 
May  adjudicate  as  safest, 

We  would  really  be  but  puppets 
Worked  by  wheels  of  circumstances, 

Acted  on  through  wires  of  motive  45 

By  invisible  direction 


44 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Of  the  blind  god  Fate,  whose  power 
Holds  us  as  his  willing  victims — 

Dumb  machines  to  do  his  bidding — 
While  we  smilingly  confront  him 
With  our  false  pretence  of  freedom. 

Let  us  try  to  break  the  fetters 
Of  this  most  dehumanizing 
Tyrant  which  now  seems  to  bind  us 
Willing  slaves  but  really  will-less , 
Acting  with  supposed  volition 
Yet  without  a choice  in  action 
Only  as  the  circumstances 
Which  coerce  and  lead  us  blindly 
Seem  to  leave  us  voluntary; — 

And  though  I may  fail  to  answer 
Or  explain  the  cryptic  problem 
Which  so  many  minds  has  puzzled — 
How  the  will  controls  the  motive, 

Or  how  choice  between  incentives, 

Can  coerce  the  circumstances 
Which  such  motive  seems  composed  of, 
Yet  this  most  appalling  doctrine 
Of  the  absolute  dominion 
Of  environment  of  being 
Can  be  only  false  in  essence, 

As  the  common  sense  and  reason 
Of  a fatalist  must  tell  him 
If  he  once  attempt  to  test  it, — 

Who,  not  for  a single  moment, 

Could  by  either  word  or  action 
Carry  out  such  fatal  programme 
As  his  theory  contemplates 
Where  responsible  conditions, 

As  now  based  on  choice,  volition, 

And  free  agency  in  action, 

Must  control  all  human  beings 
If  they  live  or  act  together. 

For  if  in  the  light  of  reason 
And  the  crucial  test  of  practice 
All  legitimate  deduction 
Shows  this  fatalistic  idea 
To  result  in  utter  chaos 
Should  society  adopt  it, — 

If  fatality  of  motive 

And  the  force  of  circumstances 


(Rendering  the  will  abortive, 
Resolution  nugatory, 

And  all  choice  but  pure  deception,) 
Contradict  our  very  senses 
In  defiance  of  our  logic, 

And  upset  the  social  fabric 
When  once  carried  into  practice, 
Then  must  abstract  theoretics 
Yield  to  ethical  conclusions, 

While  the  rational  and  real 
Must  supplant  all  mere  assumptions 
When  the  logic  of  a thesis 
Absolutely  works  destruction 
To  society  and  order. 

Theories  thus  clearly  tending 
Toward  their  own  annihilation 
And  the  theorists  who  use  them, 
Reason  must  reject  as  errors. 

Even  though  the  metaphysics 
Covered  by  their  subtle  problems 
Be  not  wholly  explicated 
In  its  complicated  bearing, 

They  are  better  relegated 
To  the  unexplored  dominions 
Of  unsolvable  enigmas 
And  unknowable  relations 
Than  to  contravene  the  senses 
And  deny  results  unquestioned 
By  an  abstract  proposition. 

If  mankind  are  only  creatures 
Of  surrounding  circumstances, 
Chained  to  act  alone  from  motives 
Which  they  have  no  part  in  forming, 
With  no  choice  or  power  of  choosing 
As  between  conflicting  motives, — 
Then  fatality,  not  reason, 

Sways  dominion  undisputed 
As  the  guiding  law  of  action ; 

Then  all  right  and  wrong  in  conduct 
Which  have  been  eliminated 
From  morality  and  ethics 
Neutralized  become  extinguished, 
And  such  words  as  sin  and  sinner, 
Justice,  wickedness,  and  judgment, 
Law,  and  government , and  order, 


5 

io 

i5 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  III. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


45 


Are  misnomers  in  our  language, 

And  should  be  expunged  forever 
From  all  standard  dictionaries, — ■ 

While  our  penologic  tribunes, 

With  their  criminal  enactments,  5 

Ought  to  be  annulled  as  useless 
And  vindictive  modes  of  torture; 

For  why  punish  law-infractors 

For  the  most  flagitious  outrage 

If  their  crimes,  or  what  we  term  such,  10 

Are  results  of  circumstances 

They  could  neither  change  nor  weaken  ? — 

Which  so  shaped  controlling  motives 

As  to  act  upon  volition, 

And  force  will  to  choose  the  strongest,  15 
Without  power  to  resist  it? 

Under  such  a view  of  motives 
Lawlessness  is  but  the  prestige 
Of  some  fatalistic  tyrant 
Acting  through  the  strongest  motive  20 
On  his  human  helpless  puppets:. 

Murders  and  assassinations 
By  the  will-less,  harmless,  faultless, 
Passive,  innocent  assassin, 

Bandit,  or  incendiary,  25 

Are  the  sports  of  secret  forces 
Dallying  with  circumstances 
(As  automata  are  managed 
Or  as  marionettes  are  toyed  with), 

Which  no  human  will  can  frustrate  30 

And  no  power  of  choice  can  jostle; — 
Crime  is  but  the  forced  resultant 
Of  some  stimulating  motive 
Irresistibly  coercing 

Sinless  murderers  and  brigands  35 

Just  as  steam  propels  an  engine; 

And  amid  the  social  chaos 
Which  this  fatalistic  dogma 
Would,  if  carried  into  practice, 

Introduce  in  place  of  order,  40 

Acts  would  fail  of  all  distinction 
As  to  turpitude  or  virtue; 

Good  and  bad  would  merge  in  meaning, 
And  be  synonyms  in  essence, 

And  with  all  the  definitions  45 


In  the  moral  code  perverted 
Choice  would  only  mean  coercion, 

Will  but  force  of  circumstances, 

J ust  as  steam  or  wind  or  horse-power 
Truly  signifies  propulsion; — 50 

While  the  fatalist  would  tell  us 
That  our  honest  supposition, 

In  mistaking  circumstances 

And  the  force  of  ruling  motives 

For  free  agency  in  choosing  55 

Is  the  fault  of  education — 

Fruits  of  priestly  machinations — 

And  puerility  of  childhood, 

Based  on  superstitious  ideas 

And  our  ignorance  of  science.  Go 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom 
Of  the  will,  these  thinkers  tell  us, 
Notwithstanding  man  is  conscious 
That  he  does  possess  volition; 

And,  in  ordinary  matters,  65 

Can  select  from  groups  of  motives 
As  determined  on  by  judgment, — 

Can  elect  his  course  of  action 
From  two  courses  set  before  him, 

Viewing  one  as  right  and  proper  70 

And  the  other  wrong  and  sinful. 

If  we  can  not  help  our  actions 
Or  control  our  course  of  conduct, — 

If  we  really  are  the  puppets 
Of  some  overruling  motive, — 75 

Why  this  inbred  lie  of  conscience 
With  its  casuistic  promptings — 

With  its  punitory  horrors 
Dogging  us  for  every  error — 

Frighting  us  with  false  arraignments  80 
When  in  fact  we  are  but  victims 
Of  resistless  circumstances, 

Carried  by  the  strongest  motive 
Where  that  upaz-surcharged  cyclone 
Of  fatality  would  drive  us?  85 

If  our  wills  are  but  chimeras 
And  volition  but  a fancy, — 

If  we  can  not  make  selection 
Only  as  compelled  to  make  it, — 

If  we  can  not  choose  from  objects  go 


46 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Only  as  manipulated 
By  primordial  laws  of  being 
Blindly  chaining  will  to  motive, — 

Why  should  primal  laws  of  nature 
Stamp  the  will  with  false  impressions  5 
Till  the  cheat  is  all-pervading 
And  all  minds  accept  the  idea 
That  we  do  decide  by  choosing 
And  determine  by  volition, 

And  that  we  do  really  govern  10 

And  exert  controlling  power 
Over  various  groups  of  motives 
By  our  voluntary  actions? 

All  philosophy  and  teaching 
Claiming  to  be  sound  in  ethics,  15 

As  a moment  since  suggested, 

Should  be  tested  by  their  fruitage 

Or  their  tendency  in  practice 

As  to  character  and  conduct 

With  the  masses  who  imbibe  them.  20 

With  this  rule  applied  to  motive 

As  the  governor  of  actions 

And  controller  of  volition, 

It  would  not  take  long  to  settle 

This  most  complicated  problem  25 

Even  should  we  fail  to  answer 

All  the  fine  hair-splitting  questions 

Which  free  agency  has  started 

As  to  acting  without  motive 

Or  what  prior  combinations  30 

Cause  incentives  thus  to  move  us. 

All  such  problems  can  be  settled 
T o reductio  ad  absurdum , 

Showing  fruits  of  self-destruction 
To  the  men  who  advocate  them,  35 

Proving  that  their  course  tends  downward 
To  the  very  depths  of  ruin: 

If,  for  instance,  fully  tested 
With  some  isolated  people, 

Giving  them  a social  trial  40 

Under  favorable  conditions, 

Free  from  counteracting  doctrines 

Or  extraneous  diversions 

Such  as  all  religious  ideas 

Or  their  casuistic  promptings.  45 


Let  a boy  be  taught  by  parents 
And  society  around  him 
Without  one  conflicting  idea 
That  he  can  not  gauge  his  conduct 
Only  as  compelled  to  gauge  it, — 50 

That  volition  and  nolition 
Are  alike  the  work  of  motive 
To  which  choice  must  yield  subservience, — 
That  he  really  has  no  freedom 
To  assert  his  independence  55 

Of  the  leading  cords  which  draw  him, 

Or  decide  the  simplest  action 
Only  as  coerced  by  motives 
Shaped  by  ruling  circumstances, 

And  that  hence  he  is  the  victim  60 

Of  resistless  laws  of  being, 

Irresponsible  and  powerless 
To  divert  their  consequences, — 

That  the  freedom  called  volition, 

Taught  in  every  code  of  morals,  65 

Is  a silly  superstition, 

False  in  fact  and  inconsistent 
With  the  settled  laws  of  science, — 

Would  not  such  a boy  run  riot 
And  become  debauched  and  reckless,  70 
Yielding  to  the  least  desire 
Of  his  appetites  or  passions? — 

Would  he  not  become  the  victim 
Of  the  most  degrading  vices 
Where  corrupting  impulse  tended,  75 
Till  patibulary  sentence 
Or  coerced  incarceration, 

As  the  fatalistic  climax, 

Closed  the  scene  of  profligacy? 

Such  result  with  such  conditions  80 

And  environments  so  fashioned 
Must  inevitably  follow, 

Unless  some  implanted  instinct 
Of  the  boy’s  own  better  nature 
Rises  to  resist  the  doctrine,  85 

And  his  conscious  intuition, 

Lifting  him  above  his  teachers, 

Gives  the  lie  to  fatalism. 

Tell  that  boy  he  has  no  power 

Over  peccable  inclinings,  90 


Chap.  III. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


47 


And  as  sure  as  he  believes  it 
Will  all  effort  at  resistance 
lie  suppressed  and  dissipated. 

Were  this  doctrine  taught  to  children 
In  all  schools  and  at  all  firesides,  5 

And  the  rising  generation 
Made  to  look  upon  their  actions 
As  coerced  by  ruling  motives 
And  resistless  circumstances, — 

With  no  will  except  as  fashioned  10 

By  incentives  forced  upon  it, — 

Penitentiaries  and  prisons 

Would  become  profuse  as  churches 

To  contain  the  reckless  myriads 

Who  would  carry  out  the  doctrine  15 

To  legitimate  conclusions, 

Till  at  last  a social  chaos 
Would  supplant  all  law  and  order, — 
Might  would  crush  the  right,  and  power, 
Recognized  supreme, would  triumph, — 20 
Weakness  would  succumb  to  prowess, 

As  expressed  in  Darwin’s  idea 
Of  “ survival  of  the  fittest,” 

Till  the  few  surviving  outlaws, 

Who,  by  natural  selection  25 

And  the  force  of  circumstances 
Had  upset  the  social  fabric 
And  reduced  the  world  to  chaos, 

Having  nothing  else  to  conquer 

Like  fierce  man-devouring  monsters — 30 

Anthropophagous  barbarians — 

Would  annihilate  each  other. 

But  recurring  to  the  idea 
Of  the  origin  of  will-force 
Or  of  mind’s  organic  structure, — 35 

Which  we  left  to  treat  of  motives 
And  the  force  of  circumstances, — 

[f  we  look  through  nature’s  lenses 

At  the  mental  organisms 

As  displayed  in  sentient  creatures,  40 

And  attempt  to  trace  their  lineage 

By  the  cognate  laws  of  being 

To  their  primal  germination, 

We  shall  see  as  through  a vista 


Every  shade  of  life  and  instinct  45 

In  all  grades  of  conscious  being, 

As  a stream  whose  primal  fountain 
Hides  itself  beyond  the  limits 
Of  all  well-defined  conception; — 

And  if  followed  from  the  sensual  50 
Back  to  super-sensual  forces, 

As  theosophy  would  teach  us 
Could  its  light  he  made  to  guide  us 
To  the  essence  of  causation, 

Would  compel  the  mind  to  view  it  55 
As  intrinsic  part  and  parcel 
Of  that  hypothetic  life-source 
Out  of  whose  exhaustless  treasure 
Every  vital  germ  must  issue. 

Thus  the  visible  creation,  60 

Represented  by  the  bodies 
Of  corporeal  organisms, 

Is  objective  and  resultant — 

Neither  causal  nor  subjective — - 

Ends  from  hidden  laws  and  forces  65 

Acting  through  preordination, — 

Feeble,  transient  adumbrations, 

Of  interior  vital  substance, 

Whose  primordial  cause  secreted 
Keeps  beyond  the  mortal  senses.  70 

Life  thus  reaches  to  the  fountain 
Of  intangible  existence, 

Covered  by  that  unseen  aura 
Which  pervades  the  realms  of  spirit, 

And  of  which  we  catch  but  glimpses,  75 
As  the  soul’s  eye  intromitted 
Judges  a posteriori , 

Seeing  through  the  mist  of  matter 
By  our  spiritual  discernment 
Forms  evolve  from  spirit-substance  80 

As  the  outer  from  the  inner, 

Tracing  by  the  magic  torchlight 

Of  noetic  inspiration 

Every  germ  of  mind  or  instinct, 

Screened  by  films  of  fleshy  vestment,  85 
To  the  same  eternal  fountain. 

Mind  is  thus  resolved  to  ego 
As  the  only  kind  of  selfhood, — 

In  reality  is  being 


48 


The  Problem  of  II uman  Life. 


In  its  most  essential  import, — 
Represented  for  a season 
By  its  bodily  imago, — 

Which  through  sensual  recognition 
Like  a shadow  presupposes  5 

Something  as  the  real  substance — 

As  the  real  nut  is  kernel, 

Not  the  pericarp  which  hides  it; — 

So  the  visible  in  nature 

As  the  tangible  of  being  10 

Or  the  symbol  of  existence 

Only  represents  the  inner 

Or  invisible  quintessence 

Which  exists  alone  as  spirit. 

Here  we  reach  the  sound  conclusion,  15 
Unassailable  by  reason, 

That  all  life  throughout  creation, 

From  the  highest  mental  structure 
To  ephemerons  and  midges — 

Even  throughout  vegetation  20 

Down  to  protophytes  or  algae — 

Is  a part  of  one  essential 
And  substantial  Godlike  fountain, — 
Whence  all  life-germs  have  proceeded, 
And  whence  every  force  in  nature  25 

Had  its  primal  emanation. 

Hence  all  life  or  spirit-essence, 

Sense,  perception,  thought,  or  instinct, 

In  whatever  form  subsisting, 

Is  essentially  and  truly  30 

Part  of  God’s  intrinsic  substance; 

And  by  parity  it  follows 

When  the  life-germ  leaves  the  matter 

Of  which  forms  are  fabricated 

It  is  not  annihilated,  35 

And  no  more  can  end  existence 

Than  can  fuel  by  combustion; 

But  with  all  its  primal  essence 

Or  its  incorporeal  substance 

By  reflux  rejoins  the  fountain  40 

(Whence  a drop  it  emanated 

To  fulfill  the  use  intended), 

There  to  melt  by  re-absorption 
Into  God’s  essential  being, 


Or,  with  personal  persistence, 

As  an  independent  ego 
Float  forever  on  the  bosom 
Of  His  omnipresent  substance  * 

It  is  but  a child’s  conclusion 
To  assume  that  life  is  nothing  50 

But  a psychical  chimera 
Or  effect  of  combination 
Of  mere  inorganic  matter 
As  a nameless  force  resultant, 

And  that  when  an  organism  55 

Fails  to  carry  out  its  functions 
Such  result  as  life  or  spirit 
Will  per  consequence  have  ended; — 

For  life,  intellect,  or  instinct, 

Or  whatever  name  we  give  it,  60 

Does  create,  produce,  develop, 

And  must  hence  be  real  substance, 

Since  substantial  ends  can  only 
Be  produced  by  causes  equal. 

Mind  must  therefore  be  substantial,  65 
If  in  rarity  surpassing 
And  tenuity  transcending 
Fiftyfold  magnetic  substance, 

Or  that  hypothetic  ether 

Filling  interstellar  regions,  70 

Whether  it  be  represented 

In  the  instinct  of  a mollusk 

Or  the  intellectual  powers 

Of  a Newton  or  a Humboldt, — 

Whether  manifold  or  simple  75 

Be  the  compass  of  its  actions; 

And  if  mind  or  life  or  instinct 
Be  an  entity — a something 
Having  actual  existence — 

Then  its  germ  can  never  perish  80 

Or  become  annihilated, 

(Since  it  is  a law  of  nature, 

As  determined  on  by  science, 

That  no  thing  can  change  to  nothing,) — 

* In  .a  subsequent  chapter  this  important  philo- 
sophical idea,  as  to  what  becomes  of  spirit,  life, 
instinct,  &c.,  at  death,  both  in  the  case  of  man 
and  the  lower  animals,  will  be  carefully  and  elabo- 
rately stated,  as  an  original  hypothesis. 


Chai>.  III. 


Prelim  inary  Considerations. 


49 


Being  part  of  God’s  existence, 

God  as  well  might  be  extinguished 
As  His  smallest  drop  of  being, — 

For  if  but  a single  atom 

Of  this  source  of  life  and  power  5 

Could  by  peradventure  perish, 

In  the  sense  of  non-existence, 

So  might  all,  and  all  the  matter 
Which  composes  earth  and  planets 
Might  become  annihilated, — 10 

Whereas  modern  science  teaches 
That  all  matter  is  eternal 
As  to  elemental  essence — 

That  no  atom  ever  perished, 

Thereby  meaning  non-existence.  15 

It  can  matter  not  the  slightest 
How  material  forms  may  alter, 

Change  from  solid  to  a fluid, 

Turn  to  vapor,  gas,  or  ether, 

Still  each  particle  of  substance  20 

Must  remain  intact  forever, 

As  to  possible  reduction, 

Ponderable  if  in  a vacuum 
As  when  in  its  densest  structure. 

If  this  rational  position  25 

Be,  as  it  must  seem,  admitted, 

Follows  it  that  mind  as  substance 
Must  exist  through  endless  ages 
Indestructible  as  matter, 

Though  a million  times  transmuted  30 

Into  such  attenuation 

As  defies  all  thought  of  substance, 

And  since  all  material  objects 
Which  appear  to  come  and  vanish — 

Such  as  animals  and  flowers — 35 

Are  but  matter  in  transition, 

So  all  intellects  or  instincts 

Occupying  organisms 

(Proving  by  results  their  presence) 

Are  but  drops  from  God’s  pure  fountain,  40 
Flowing  inward,  flowing  outward, 

Ever  coming,  ever  going, 

By  that  influx  and  that  efflux 
Which  is  God’s  great  law  of  being 
Throughout  all  organic  nature.  45 


Mind  can  therefore  be  but  substance 
Of  a finer  grade  of  texture 
Than  the  gross  material  objects 
Of  which  senses  take  cognition : 

Thus  the  fluid  from  the  magnet — 50 

Of  such  rarity  its  substance 
That  no  object  can  resist  it — 

Is  to  atmosphere  as  nothing, 

Had  we  but  the  sense  to  view  them 
In  their  absolute  conditions;  55 

And  the  air  compared  to  water 
Is  as  if  it  had  no  body 
Or  was  destitute  of  substance ; 

So  the  water  stands  to  argil, 

Or  alumina  to  silver,  60 

Or  the  silver  to  platinum. 

Thus  we  rise  from  dense  to  rarer, 

From  the  tangible  to  subtile, 

Till  the  mind  becomes  bewildered 
As  our  onward  steps  ascending  63 

Through  the  elements  of  nature 
Tread  infinities  of  wonder. 

Atmosphere  would  seem  a solid 
If  with  hydrogen  contrasted, 

Had  we  instruments  and  senses  70 

Fine  enough  to  test  their  atoms; 

While  that  strange  electric  fluid 
So  pervading  throughout  nature, 

With  such  energy  in  action 

And  which  permeates  all  bodies,  75 

Would  perhaps  be  ponderous  matter 

Could  we  realize  its  contrast 

With  the  substance  of  the  spirit. 

Intellect  is  therefore  matter 
Of  the  most  essential  fineness  80 

And  tenuity  surpassing 
Every  possible  conception 
We  can  form  of  sensual  objects, — 

Just  as  hydrogen  is  matter, 

Though  imponderable  its  atoms, — 85 

Just  as  interstellar  ether — 

Which  all  modern  science  tells  us 
Freely  circulates  in  diamonds 
And  through  densest  glass  and  crystal 
By  which  light  is  undulated — 90 


50 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Is  a true  material  substance, 

More  like  “jelly”  than  like  gases, 

More  the  nature  of  a “solid” 

Than  of  atmospheric  substance, 

(As  will  soon  be  shown  from  Tyndall.  5 
Hence  the  doctrine  taught  by  Goethe 
That  mind  only  acts  through  matter, 

And  without  corporeal  substance 
Intellect  has  no  existence, 

Is  a begging  of  the  question  10 

And  a puerile  assertion 

Trifling  as  the  thoughts  of  children, 

Who  suppose  the  air  is  nothing, 

Since  beyond  their  sensual  organs — 

As  they  fail  to  see  or  feci  it,  15 

Smell  or  hear  or  taste  its  substance 
When  its  atoms  are  quiescent — 

And  that  hurricanes  are  something 
Manufactured  out  of  nothing  J* 

Thus  materialistic  writers  20 

Seem  to  form  no  true  conception 
Of  the  innermost  of  nature, — 

Or  in  fact  ignore  all  substance, 

With  a very  few  exceptions, 

Which  does  not  address  the  senses  25 
Or  submit  to  tests  of  science, 

And  can  not  conceive  the  idea 
That  the  intellect  is  substance, 

By  a parity  in  logic 

From  its  known  effects  on  matter,  30 

As  the  rays  of  magnetism 
In  their  action  on  a needle, 

Even  through  imporous  bodies, 
Demonstrate  beyond  all  question 
That  such  force  must  be  a something  35 
Having  actual  existence, 

Since  it  moves  corporeal  bodies 
Without  tangible  connection. 

Why  not  mind,  which  acts  on  matter 
With  effects  as  true  and  real  40 

As  electrical  discharges, 

Be  material  and  substantial, — 

* Goethe’s  words  are:  “Matter  can  nevei  exist 
and  be  active  without  mind,  nor  can  mind  without 
matter.” 


Of  tenuity  so  wondrous 

And  so  infinitely  subtile 

That  a new  sense  must  be  opened  43 

Or  the  present  senses  sharpened 

To  a higher  comprehension 

Ere  they  grasp  the  marvellous  problem 

Which  though  near  lies  ever  hidden 

From  our  undeveloped  vision,  50 

As  so  well  expressed  by  Tyndall.f 

Let  materialists  who  question 
God’s  existence  as  substantial — 

Who  can  not  regard  as  substance 
Intellect  or  vital  being  55 

Or  the  soul’s  immortal  essence 
Separated  from  the  body, 

Since  no  tangible  conception 

With  our  present  group  of  senses 

Can  be  formed  of  such  existence — 60 

Give  some  kind  of  explanation 

To  their  own  minds  satisfying 

Of  this  startling  fact  of  science: 

How  a grain  of  musk,  for  instance, 

If  exposed  will  fill  with  odor  65 

Many  halls  of  large  dimension, 

And  its  weight  be  undiminished 
Under  closest  observation 
Tested  by  the  scales  of  druggists, — 

While  the  substance  of  this  odor  70 

Recognized  as  really  present 
By  ten  thousand  men  and  women 
Has  a true  corporeal  nature, 

As  no  man  will  think  of  doubting. 

Let  them  grasp  a true  conception  75 
Of  this  fact  at  once  so  marvellous, 

Which  their  sense  confirms  most  fully 
While  this  substance  so  pervading 
Is  beyond  the  tests  of  science — 

So  imponderable  and  tenuous  80 

Are  the  atoms  which  compose  it — 
Floating  in  contempt  around  them 

•(•‘‘Besides  the  phenomena  which  address  the 
senses,  there  arc  laws  and  principles  and  processes 
which  do  not  address  the  senses  at  all,  but  which 
must  be  and  can  be  spiritually  discerned.” — Frag- 
ments of  Science,  p.  75. 


Chap.  III. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


5i 


Of  their  scrutiny  and  logic, 

In  defiance  of  alembics 
Or  their  microscopic  lenses, — - 
Hence  would  not  be  known  by  mortals 
Ever  to  have  had  exis  ence  5 

Only  by  the  sense  olfaction. 

Had  olfactories  been  absent 
In  the  race  of  human  beings, 

As  in  isolated  cases, 

Such  an  entity  as  perfume  10 

Never  could  have  been  discovered 
Or  have  even  been  suspected ; 

And  our  scientists  would  scout  it 

As  a foolish  freak  of  fancy 

Should  a dozen  men  and  women,  15 

Favored  with  that  special  organ 

By  miraculous  intervention, 

Make  the  solemn  declaration 
That  they  could  distinguish  odors, 

Such  as  those  of  pinks  and  roses,  20 
Even  should  their  lives  be  given 
To  confirm  the  truth  thus  stated. 

Men  like  Haeckel,  Vogt,  and  Huxley, — 
With  their  lofty  views  of  science 
And  olfactories  aborted — . 25 

Well  might  laugh  at  such  an  idea 
As  superlatively  foolish 
Or  a superstitious  fancy, 

Even  with  a better  reason 

Than  they  question  spirit-substance  30 

Or  an  infinite  Creator 

As  intelligence  substantial, 

Since  they  lack  the  spirit-senses 

Which  alone  can  judge  of  spirit 

And  its  incorporeal  nature,  35 

Or  see  elements  of  being 

As  we  now  see  bone  and  muscle. 

Why  then  might  not  spirit-bodies 
With  essential  form  and  structure 
And  an  entity  of  being  40 

More  imponderable  than  fragrance 
Circulate  within  our  presence, 

Even  hundreds  all  around  us, 

Yet  beyond  our  sensual  organs? 

This  is  not  the  mere  afflatus  45  ! 


Or  the  fanciful  imaginings 
Of  some  high-wrought  poetizer, 

But  the  logic  of  true  science 
Shown  in  practical  examples 
And  the  fairest  illustrations.  50 

Whatsoever  view  of  spirits 
Or  of  Modern  Spiritualism 
Or  of  mediumistic  “humbugs  ” 

We  may  take,  it  matters  little; — 

No  one  need  to  doubt  that  spirits,  55 
Freed  from  physical  conditions, 

May  possess  substantial  bodies 
And  a genuine  existence 
After  mortal  dissolution, 

With  their  intellectual  powers — 60 

Reason,  memory,  and  friendship — 

As  when  clothed  with  fleshy  vestments, 
Since  the  substances  of  nature 
Known  as  elemental  forces, 

Intermingling  all  around  us,  65 

Demonstrate  that  human  senses 
And  the  laws  laid  down  by  science 
Form  a most  uncertain  basis 
For  denying  life  hereafter, 

Or  the  soul’s  immortal  essence  70 

As  a substantive  existence. 

Even  theories  considered 
Absolutely  fixed  and  settled — 

Such  as  that  of  Sound,  for  instance, — 

And  so  held  for  generations  75 

Without  one  dissenting  writer, 

Broken  down  by  new  discoveries 
Or  by  patent  facts  and  data 
Overlooked  or  disregarded, 

As  will  soon  be  demonstrated  80 

To  the  reader’s  satisfaction. 

Is  it  not  the  sheerest  weakness 
Then  to  be  forever  drifting 
Here  and  there  by  so-called  science 
And  new-fangled  postulata  85 

Which  deny  the  soul  as  being, 

And  dethrone  the  God  of  nature? 

How  can  scientists  determine, 

Who  so  roundly  claim  that  spirit 

Is  an  insubstantial  nothing  90 


52 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Or  the  mere  result  of  motion 
In  the  varied  combinations 
Of  the  molecules  of  matter, 

But  that  earth  and  air  and  water 
May  be  filled  with  other  aurse 
Real  as  is  magnetism, 

Electricity,  or  odor, 

But  of  which  no  recognition 
Can  be  had  for  want  of  senses 
Adequate  to  view  such  substance 
In  its  elemental  essence? 

And  how  know  they  but  that  spirit 
Might  be  seen  with  spirit-optics — 

By  that  spiritual  discernment 
Which  Professor  Tyndall  speaks  of — 
Had  such  spirit-eyes  been  given 
As  the  sixth  organic  sense-nerve? 

And  may  not  such  sense  be  opened 
When  unclothed  of  mortal  substance 
By  that  spirit-evolution 
Which  transforms  the  man  to  angel, 
When  this  earthly  incarnation 
Shall  put  on  immortal  structure  ? 

And  might  not  such  spirit-vision, 
Through  some  unknown  evolution 
Yet  to  be  revealed  by  science, 

Be  developed  while  the  spirit 
Occupies  this  earthly  body, 

When  perhaps  about  to  leave  it, 

As  in  case  of  great  refinement 
Or  extraordinary  culture? 

I do  not  assert  this  doctrine, 

Yet  I see  no  valid  reason 

Why  such  growth  of  mental  structure 

And  transcendent  cultivation 

Might  not  be  achieved  by  mortals 

If  the  spirit  be  a substance 

Or  an  entity  of  being 

Capable  of  such  progression 

As  the  past  has  vindicated, 

Which  I aim  to  show  from  reason 
And  analogies  of  science; — 

While  there  seems  no  ground  whatever 
Why  such  scientists  as  Darwin, 

Huxley,  and  their  coadjutors, 


Should  deny  an  evolution 

To  a sense  of  spirit-vision 

Or  to  even  higher  standards 

Of  a superhuman  power 

As  a probable  achievement 

From  man’s  present  rate  of  progress, 

If  his  faculties  already 

Have  evolved  from  those  of  tadpoles. 

All  such  possible  progression 
Toward  a higher  plane  of  being 
Must  however  hinge  entirely 
On  that  something  failed  the  spirit 
Or  man’s  mental  organism 
Being  substantive  existence, 

Toward  which  all  the  observations 
I have  here  been  introducing 
Point  as  arguments  and  reasons 
Demonstrating  such  a substance, 

And  for  which  I claim  the  forces 
Circulating  all  around  us 
As  substantial  emanations, 

Of  which  no  distinctive  idea 
Hitherto  has  been  suggested, 

Go  to  justify  the  notion 

That  the  life  and  mind  are  substance, 

While  such  incorporeal  matter 

Furnishes  the  clearest  data 

As  analogies  of  science 

For  such  probable  existence 

As  I claim  the  soul  possesses. 

Take  a single  illustration 
Of  such  actual  existence 
To  confirm  this  view  of  spirit 
As  an  entity  substantial 
Ere  I close  the  present  chapter. 

Rays  projecting  from  a magnet, 
Though  invisible  by  lenses 
And  intangible  to  senses, 

Must  consist  of  real  atoms 
Capable  of  demonstration 
As  attenuated  matter, 

Which  few  scientists  will  question, 
Under  fair  investigation. 

No  mind  competent  to  reason, 

As  declared  by  Isaac  Newton, 


5 

IO 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  III. 


Preliminary  Considerations. 


53 


Or  to  draw  correct  conclusions 
From  the  simplest  forms  of  data, 

Can  conceive  a bar  of  iron 

At  a distance  from  a magnet 

Acted  on,  manipulated  5 

By  that  thing  called  magnetism , 

Unless  there  be  absolutely 
Substance  of  a real  nature 
Passing  ’twixt  the  bar  and  magnet. 

This  would  seem  to  be  so  settled  io 

And  self-evident  a truism 
That  to  more  than  state  the  idea 
Would  be  casting  doubt  upon  it. 

Yet  this  incorporeal  substance 
Darting  from  the  poles  of  magnets  15 
Is  so  powerful  and  tenuous 
As  to  move  corporeal  bodies 
Even  through  the  densest  metals, 

Note. — These  substantial  emissions,  radi- 
ating from  the  poles  of  a magnet,  which 
pass  through  a solid  mass  of  the  densest 
metal  with  the  same  freedom  exactly  as 
if  the  metal  were  absent,  and  which  can 
displace  bars  of  iron  at  a distance  without 
tangible  or  corporeal  connection  with  the 
magnet,  furnish  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
and  powerful  arguments  in  nature  against 
materialism;  and,  as  a collateral  evidence, 
in  support  of  the  personal  existence  of  a 
God,  and  in  favor  of  the  substantial  entity 
of  man’s  spiritual  and  incorporeal  nature. 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  most  confirmed 
atheist  or  non-believer  in  the  human  spirit 
as  an  entity  of  being  separate  from  the 
body,  by  properly  investigating  and  con- 
sidering this  simple  phenomenon  of  mag- 
netism, with  the  startling  analogies  it  sug- 
gests, might  succeed  in  dispelling  all  his 
doubts,  and  in  reaping  a rich  harvest  of 
satisfaction  in  contemplation  of  the  per- 
sonal nature  of  an  Allwise  First  Cause,  and 
in  looking  forward  to  an  endless  future  of 
conscious  and  intelligent  ego,  instead  of 
viewing  this  life  as  a purposeless  and  mean- 


Such  as  silver  and  platinum, — 

And,  as  known  to  every  tyro,  20 

Without  sensible  reduction 
Of  the  power  thus  exerted 
By  the  attrahent  in  question 
Which  a rheoscope  can  measure, — 

Which  refutes  the  ancient  doctrine,  25 

Modernized  in  works  on  science, 

That  two  substances  can  never 
Occupy  the  same  position 
At  one  instant  of  duration, — 

Whereas  we  shall  see  directly  30 

That  not  only  two  but  many 

Substances  with  real  atoms 

Can  thus  occupy  and  jointly 

Circulate  within  one  body 

Without  any  interference  35 

With  each  other’s  occupancy. 

ingless  existence,  and  then  staring  blank 
annihilation  in  the  face  in  the  near  future, 
as  he  is  forced  to  do  under  every  form  of 
materialistic  philosophy. 

The  paramount  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
believing  in  the  personal  and  substantial 
existence  of  the  soul  separate  from  the 
physical  body,  as  the  writer  has  realized  by 
experience,  consists  in  the  fact  that  such 
an  entity  is  not  susceptible  of  recognition 
by  any  one  of  the  five  senses,  which,  ac- 
cording to  materialism,  are  the  only  pos- 
sible inlets  to  perception,  or  through  which 
conviction  may  be  established.  How,  the 
honest  pantheist  would  ask,  am  I to  believe 
in  the  soul  as  a substantial  entity, when  not 
one  of  my  five  senses  (which  constitute  the 
only  avenues  to  my  judgment)  gives  me 
the  least  tangible  evidence  of  such  an  en- 
tity? The  same  interrogatory  problem 
applies  equally  to  the  existence  of  a God, 
since  there  is  no  direct  evidence  of  any  of 
the  senses  intimating  such  an  Infinite  and 
Allwise  Entity. 

There  is,  however,  another  avenue  lead- 
ing to  the  great  hall  of  judgment  situated 


54 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


in  the  central  park  of  man’s  intellect,  and 
that  is  the  broad  quintuple  roadway — that 
wonderful  boulevard — formed  by  the  junc- 
tion of  these  five  avenues.  That  boulevard 
is  named  Human  Reason.  The  five  ave- 
nues of  the  senses  convey  into  it  all  their 
traffic  and  commerce.  Every  vehicle  which 
travels  along  the  narrow  thoroughfares — 
radiating  in  five  different  directions  and 
communicating  with  the  surrounding  re- 
gions— from  the  gorgeous  and  gilded  equi- 
page laden  with  the  rich  pageantry  of  en- 
chanting landscapes  and  sublime  spectacles 
of  the  starry  heavens  to  the  humblest  dirt- 
cart  freighted  with  the  sensualities  of  the 
gormandizer  and  debauchee,  enter  alike 
through  the  gates  of  this  intellectual  park, 
and  are  duly  classified  and  arranged  in  the 
great  roadway  of  Reason  by  the  police 
force  of  the  mental  faculties,  whose  presi- 
ding officer  sits  as  umpire  in  the  hall  of 
judgment. 

Leaving  this  simile,  it  is  the  office  of 
reason  to  grasp  all  the  sensual  ideas  which 
become  the  subject  of  perceptive  thought 
through  these  various  inlets  to  the  mind — 
to  analyze  and  compare,  investigate  and 
arrange — and,  after  they  are  duly  classified 
and  placed  in  order,  to  stamp  the  resultant 
impressions  deduced  from  their  inter-com- 
bination at  their  coin  value,  and  then  sub- 
mit the  whole  to  the  genius  who  sits  upon 
the  judgment-seat,  whose  decree  and  sig- 
net settle  the  final  question  of  faith. 

Hence,  the  fact  that  the  vital  essence  or 
spiritual  entity  of  man  or  the  substantial 
personality  of  an  Infinite  Creator  can  not 
be  recognized  by  the  direct  evidence  of 
any  one  of  the  five  senses  or  by  all  of  them 
combined,  is  not  a sufficient  reason  why 
such  existence  should  be  repudiated  as  a 
chimera,  so  long  as  the  analytic  and  syn- 
thetic powers  of  the  human  reason,  by  a 
due  examination  of  the  phenomena  of 
nature  and  a careful  comparison  of  their 


results  as  analogues  of  the  effects  of  men- 
tal workings,  shall  warrant  a belief  in  the 
existence  of  such  entities. 

Are  there  in  nature,  then,  such  convin- 
cing and  conclusive  analogies, — which,  if 
properly  investigated,  may  form  a basis  for 
dissipating  our  doubts  of  the  intangible 
substances  of  spirit-entity  and  Infinite  per- 
sonality?— and  can  human  reason,  through 
the  agency  of  such  facts  brought  before  it 
by  means  of  the  senses,  so  utilize  their 
logical  purport  as  to  rationally  convince 
the  judgment  that  such  incorporeal  yet 
substantial  and  wonderful  existences  are 
a probable  reality?  Pantheists  and  be- 
lievers in  all  phases  of  materialistic  phi- 
losophy should  gladly  accept  the  proposi- 
tion involved  in  the  above  inquiry,  and 
candidly  ask  themselves  this  question: — 

If  real  substantial  atoms  can  pass  off  in 
streams  from  a steel  magnet,  which  are 
utterly  beyond  the  cognition  of  any  one 
of  our  senses,  and  yet  are  capable  of  pene- 
trating and  passing  through  plates  of  glass 
inclosing  between  them  sheets  of  imporous 
water,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  such  in- 
visible and  powerful  threads  as  to  seize 
bars  of  iron  thus  insulated  from  the  mag- 
net and  physically  move  them,  thus  pro- 
ducing a corporeal  result  by  an  intangible 
substance,  is  it  not  every  way  reasonable 
that  this  intangible  and  incorporeal  some- 
thing called  mind,  which  invents,  plans,  and 
constructs  vast  machines  and  works  of  en- 
gineering through  man’s  slight  physical 
organism  should  also  be  a real  and  genuine 
existence,  even  infinitely  more  wonderful 
and  powerful  than  invisible  magnetic  cur- 
rents ? 

That  such  a result  as  moving  bars  of 
iron  free  from  any  tangible  connection 
with  the  magnet,  even  inclosed  within  a 
vacuum  having  imporous  walls,  can  take 
place  without  some  hind  of  actual  substance 
passing  from  the  magnet  through  the  sepa- 


Chap.  III. 


Prelim  inary  Co  ns  id  era  lions. 


55 


rating  barriers , is  a simple  impossibility, 
and  an  absurdity  so  manifestly  self-evident 
that  the  reason  of  a philosopher  no  less 
than  the  intuition  of  a child  must  revolt 
at  it.  That  the  human  mind  can  project 
its  rays  of  thought  through  space,  seize 
and  analyze  the  constituent  elements  of  a 
planet,  and  then  weigh  its  ponderous  mass 
in  mathematical  scales,  while  another  sys- 
tem of  radiations  from  the  same  mind  is 
building  a steamship  or  constructing  a 
locomotive  through  man’s  puny  organism 
(which  without  this  intangible  radiating 
something  would  be  as  powerless  for  such 
results  as  a clay  statue),  and  still,  after  all, 
that  such  intangible  entity  should  be  an 
insubstantial  nothing , — a mere  mechanical 
effect  of  the  molecular  motion  among  the 
atoms  composing  the  brain,  arranged,  as 
Professor  Haeckel  describes  it,  in  a varied 
manner  and  combination,  is  equally  a 
manifest  impossibility,  and  no  less  a mani- 
fest absurdity. 

For  my  own  part  (though,  like  most  men 
who  reflect,  having  had  doubts  at  times  as 
to  the  perpetuation  of  substantial  and  con- 
scious being  after  death),  I can  never 
again  question  the  entire  reasonableness 
of  the  future  life,  or  doubt  that  our  spirit- 
ual entity  can  think  and  feel  and  exercise 
all  its  present  faculties  when  separated 
from  its  physical  organism,  so  long  as 
nature  furnishes  me  with  the  overwhelm- 
ing analogue  of  an  intangible  substance 
like  magnetism,  which,  though  physical 
and  corporeal  in  its  effects,  eludes  every 
sense  and  defies  every  device  for  inter- 
cepting its  imponderable  and  permeating 
atoms. 

It  would  almost  seem  that  the  Allwise 
Organizer  of  this  universe  had  purposely 
instituted  these  invisible  and  substantial 
entities,  giving  to  them  visible  and  corpo- 
real effects,  that  His  intelligent  and  re- 
flecting creatures  might  not  be  left  without 


the  rational  basis  for  believing  in  the  im- 
perishable nature  of  their  own  inner 
being. 

The  most  ignorant  savage  who  lifts 
and  then  lets  fall  a stone  could  scarcely 
help  asking  himself  the  question,  “ What 
pulled  that  stone  toward  the  earth  rather 
than  causing  it  to  move  in  an  opposite 
direction  ?”  Yet  it  took  a Newton  a long 
time  to  determine  the  law  of  that  very 
phenomenon,  though  not  even  then  with- 
out the  settled  conviction,  which  a child 
could  not  fail  to  be  struck  with,  namely, 
that  some  substantial  element  must  have 
formed  a connection  between  the  earth  and 
the  apple , or  the  latter  never  coidd  have  fallen 
to  the  ground. 

The  hypothesis  that  all  the  forces  in 
nature  as  well  as  life  and  mind  are  real 
and  substantial  entities  (which  is  the  lead- 
ing object  of  these  preliminary  chapters 
to  establish,  as  paving  the  way  to  a more 
complete  refutation  of  Modem  Evolution 
than  can  be  effected  without  it),  can  not 
fail,  if  clearly  demonstrated,  in  demolishing 
the  foundation  of  materialistic  philosophy, 
and  leaving  atheism  not  even  a scintilla  of 
plausible  excuse  for  denying  an  infinite, 
intelligent,  and  substantial  First  Cause. 

If  light,  heat,  sound,  gravitation,  elec- 
tricity, and  magnetism  are  all  demonstra- 
bly substantial  entities,  or  each  a different 
kind  of  attenuated  matter,  instead  of  a 
meaningless  “mode  of  motion”  without 
any  substance  to  move , and  if  these  various 
emanations  can  penetrate  the  densest 
bodies,  each  by  laws  peculiar  to  itself, 
some  of  them  moving  corporeal  and  pon- 
derous objects  in  defiance  of  all  inter- 
vening barriers,  then  what  reasonable  ex- 
cuse can  a thoughtful  mind  frame  for 
ignoring  the  unseen  hand  of  God  because 
it  is  unseen,  or  disbelieving  in  its  own 
substantial  and  immortal  entity  because 
intangible  to  the  physical  senses? 


56 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


That  some  of  the  “ modes  of  motion  ” 
just  named,  such  as  light  and  sound 
(though  I have  neither  time  nor  space  to 
investigate  all),  will  be  demonstrably  shown 
to  be  substantial  emanations,  the  reader 
will  be  left  without  the  slightest  ground 
to  doubt  after  reading  the  following  three 
chapters;  and  if  sound , for  example,  shall 
be  really  so  demonstrated  to  be  attenuated 
matter,  capable  of  penetrating  and  travel- 
ing through  solid  iron  19,000  feet  a second, 
will  any  rational  materialist  longer  doubt 
the  reasonable  probability  that  man’s 
spirit  is  an  actual  and  substantial  entity, 
with  the  capacity  of  living,  feeling,  think- 
ing, and  acting,  separate  from  this  corpo- 
real body? 

With  all  the  external  show  of  churches, 
Sunday-schools,  religious  educational  in- 
stitutions, and  the  generally  conceded  na- 
tional belief  in  God,  Religion,  and  a Fu- 
ture Life,  a careful  observer  can  not  fail 
to  note  a strong  undertow  of  not  only 
common  skepticism  but  of  downright 
atheism  and  materialism  permeating  all 
classes  of  the  community,  but  more  espe- 
cially young  men  who  have  received  a fair 
or  liberal  education,  and  who  have  given 
any  special  attention  to  the  scientific 
questions  of  the  day. 

Ignore  this  state  of  facts  as  we  may,  it 
is  nevertheless  becoming  alarmingly  wide- 
spread, as  confidential  conversations 
scarcely  ever  fail  to  reveal,  at  least  in  a 
large  majority  of  cases;  while  thousands 
who  in  their  innermost  consciousness  doubt 
all  religion,  and  place  themselves  philo- 
sophically with  Huxley  and  Darwin  on  a 
level  with  the  horse  and  the  dog  so  far  as 
any  prospect  or  possibility  of  a future  life 
is  concerned,  yet  from  the  influences  of 
society  and  the  present  unpopularity  of  all 
such  atheistical  views,  suppress  and  par- 
tially conceal  their  real  sentiments,  not 
being  willing  to  breast  the  current  of  re- 


ligious belief  while  it  remains  in  the  as- 
cendancy,— not  really  wishing,  however, 
to  confirm  themselves  hopelessly  in  such 
materialistic  ideas  as  necessarily  blot  out 
all  prospect  of  a future  life,  but  waiting 
vacantly  and  inanely,  with  indecision  or 
indefiniteness  of  thought,  for  something  to 
take  place, — staring  blankly  at  the  wonders 
of  nature,  which  invitingly  hold  out  their 
analogical  proofs  of  an  intelligent  First 
Cause  and  of  man’s  substantial  ego, — gaz- 
ing passively  at  the  marvellous  so-called 
“ forces  ” and  “ modes  of  motion  ” as  in- 
explicable mysteries  which  really,  as  hither- 
to viewed,  amount  to  nothing  and  teach 
nothing , just  as  a savage  looks  at  an  eclipse 
and  dismisses  it  with  a grunt,  never  attempt- 
ing to  go  behind  the  shadow  to  the  actual 
and  substantial  cause  of  the  phenomenon. 
Yet  there  are  a few  who  seem  to  take  pride 
in  boasting  of  their  infidelity,  and  in  pub- 
licly arraying  their  atheistical  or  more 
plausible  Darwinian  arguments  to  prove 
that  this  life  is  all  there  is  of  us  or  for  us. 
To  such  of  my  readers — assuming  them  to 
be  honest — these  analogies,  drawn  from 
nature’s  substantial  forces,  are  particularly 
and  impressively  commended. 

While  the  course  of  investigation  here 
marked  out  has  never,  so  far  as  the  writer 
knows,  been  made  a specific  question  by 
which  to  overthrow  materialistic  philos- 
ophy, he  nevertheless  believes  with  the 
most  unshaken  faith  that  this  analytical 
and  analogical  train  of  argument  extend- 
edly  applied  to  these  hitherto  speechless, 
insubstantial,  and  almost  meaningless 
forces  and  modes  of  motion,  causing  them 
at  last  to  speak  out  and  step  forth  as  real, 
substantial  existences,  though  intangible  to 
sense, can  not  fail  to  address  itself  as  a new 
revelation  from  nature’s  secret  archives  to 
the  tens  of  thousands  of  young  men  who 
have  never  taken  the  trouble  to  question 
the  infinite  marvels  stored  up  in  Odor, 


Ciiap.  III. 


Prelim  inary  Considerations. 


57 


Magnetism,  Light,  Heat,  Electricity,  Gravi- 
tation, and  Sound,  or  to  draw  from  these 
instructive  analogues  the  paramount  truth 
of  an  invisible  world  of  spirit  as  containing 
the  entities  of  which  our  bodies  are  but  the 
ephemeral  shadow — the  kernel  of  which 
the  flesh  forms  but  the  pericarp — the  whole 
physical  organism  being  but  as  lifeless 
stone  apart  from  that  essential  but  intan- 
gible entity  of  being. 

It  might  be  thought  by  superficial  critics 
that  the  leading  position  here  assumed — 
namely,  that  all  the  forces  and  all  the  vital 
and  mental  powers  are  attenuated  or  incor- 
poreal substance — amounts  to  a very  re- 
fined or  sublimated  form  of  “ materialism.” 
Whatever  new  meaning  may  be  extended 
to  this  word  by  individual  critics,  I can 
only  recognize  the  old  and  universally  re- 
ceived signification,  namely,  the  belief  that 


the  human  spirit  is  devoid  of  all  entity  of 
being,  and  that  it  is  absolutely  nothing 
separate  from  corporeal  organism.  By 
proving,  as  I am  now  endeavoring  to  do,  so 
many  things  to  be  substantial  emanations 
hitherto  indefinitely  held  as  “ modes  of 
motion,”  or  almost  meaningless  “ forces,” 
and  thereby  making  it  probable  that  the 
human  soul  is  likewise  an  essential  and 
substantial  entity,  I necessarily  disprove 
the  old  materialistic  philosophy,  and  it 
matters  not  to  me  what  name  be  given  to 
the  new  should  I be  successful  in  establish- 
ing its  claims;  for  if  the  human  spirit  can 
be  shown  by  unassailable  arguments  to  live 
after  it  leaves  this  earthly  house  of  its 
tabernacle,  even  should  it  have  to  exist  as 
attenuated  material  substance,  I shall  not 
be  at  all  ashamed  of  such  an  immortal 
materialism. 


58 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Chapter  IV. 


THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT,  GRAVITATION,  ETC. 


Light  shown  to  be  Substantial  Emissions. — The  Undulatory  Theory  repudiated  as  utterly  fallacious. 
Conclusive  Reasons  why  it  can  not  be  true. — Luminiferous  Ether  a pure  invention,  without  any  foun- 
dation or  use  in  Nature  or  Science. — The  Absurdities  of  the  Theory  pointed  out. — It  had  its  Origin  in 
the  False  Notion  of  Sound-Waves. — The  two  Current  Theories  of  Sound  and  Light  must  necessarily 
stand  or  fall  together. — The  Reasonableness  of  Light  as  Substantial  Emissions  shown  from  the  Received 
Views  concerning  Ether. — The  Wonderful  Action  of  Odor  as  an  Illustration. — Facts  which  Science 
never  could  have  discovered  nor  can  explain. — A Beautiful  Analogy  of  Spirit-Substance  and  Soul-Entity. 
An  Improvement  on  the  old  Emission  Theory,  obviating  the  former  Objections  to  it. — Light  generated 
the  same  as  Sound  by  Vibratory  Motion,  and  radiated  in  pulses  or  discharges. — Every  Phenomenon 
explicable  by  the  Undulatory  Theory  can  be  equally  solved  by  the  Hypothesis  of  Substantial  Discharges. 
Gravitation  an  essentially  Substantial  Entity. — Sir  Isaac  Newton’s  admissions. — The  Interaction  and 
Correlation  of  the  so-called  Forces  and  Modes  of  Motion  show  them  to  be  Attenuated  Matter. — Air  the 
Connecting  Link  between  the  Grosser  and  Rarer  Substances  in  Nature. — The  Atmosphere  should  obviate 
all  difficulty  in  believing  in  the  Substantial  Nature  of  the  Forces,  and  even  of  Mind  and  Life. 


Having  thus  prepared  the  reader 
By  a somewhat  broken  series 
Of  preliminary  reasons 
For  man’s  entity  of  being, 

Light  will  now  be  demonstrated  5 

As  substantial  emanations 
From  the  luminiferous  body, — 

Being  formed  of  myriad  granules 
Of  attenuated  matter, 

And  of  such  surpassing  fineness  10 

That  the  mind  becomes  bewildered 
When  attempting  to  conceive  them 
As  allied  to  grosser  substance, 

Such  as  ponderable  objects. 

This  comports  with  common  reason,  15 
And  with  every  phase  of  science, 

As  I shall  proceed  to  argue: 

That  this  so-called  mode  of  motion 
Is  composed  of  real  atoms, 

Having  absolute  existence  20 


As  an  entity  substantial, 

Yet  so  tenuous  and  subtile 

Are  these  incorporeal  granules 

That  they  penetrate  the  hardest 

And  the  most  imporous  bodies  25 

Found  in  nature’s  laboratory — 

Even  emeralds  and  diamonds — 

Passing  through  them  without  friction 
Or  the  slightest  disarrangement 
Of  their  adamantive  texture  30 

Freely  as  through  air  or  gases. 

Yet  one  sense  alone  detects  them, 

While  four  senses  of  the  body — 

Feeling , hearing , tasting , smelling , — 
Utterly  ignore  their  presence.  35 

But  for  sight  the  world  would  never 
Have  supposed  that  light  existed, 

Even  could  the  world  have  risen 

To  its  civilized  condition 

Without  eyes  to  aid  its  progress.  40 


CiiAr.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Etc. 


59 


True  it  is  that  photologic 
Science,  as  now  advocated, 

Has  denied  that  light  is  substance 
Having  emanating  atoms, — 

Claiming  that  the  “Undulatory  5 

Theory  ” must  be  accepted, 

Just  as  sound,  by  all  admitted 
To  consist  of  undulations, 

Can  not  be  emitted  granules; 

And  since  atmospheric  ripples,  10 

Or  sonorous  undulations, 

First  led  scientific  writers 
To  the  theory  of  light-waves 
Based  on  “luminiferous  ether,” 

Light  may  be  considered  settled,  15 

Till  its  congener  has  yielded 
To  inevitable  science. 

Thus  the  theory  in  question, 

As  all  scientists  maintain  it, 

With  perhaps  not  one  exception,  20 

Teaches  us  that  light  is  nothing 
But  an  undulatory  movement 
Of  a hypothetic  substance 
Called  the  “ Luminiferous  Ether,” 

Which  fills  intersteller  regions,  25 

Solar  space,  and  solid  bodies, 

Of  the  tangible  creation, — 

Even  all  corporeal  objects, 

Whether  rare  or  dense  their  structure; 

And  that  these  ethereal  ripples  30 

Passing  through  imporous  bodies, 

Such  as  crystal,  glass,  and  diamond, 

Strike  the  optic  nerve,  creating 
What  we  call  the  sense  of  vision, 

Just  as  atmospheric  sound-waves  35 

Act  upon  the  auditory 

Nerve,  and  cause  the  sense  of  hearing, — 

Which  I aim  to  show  the  reader 

Is  distinctly  contradicted 

By  the  very  law  in  question,  40 

As  originally  constructed 

On  the  theory  of  sound-waves; — 

That  this  “ luminiferous  ether  ” 

Is  an  absolute  invention 

And  the  purest  fabrication,  45 


Having  not  one  fact  of  science 
Or  phenomenon  of  nature, 

On  the  earth  or  in  the  heavens, 

Tending  to  suggest  such  substance 

Or  to  make  it  necessary, — 50 

Being  but  the  purest  guess-work, 

Gotten  up  to  special  order, 

As  an  undulating  medium, — 

Thus  to  form  some  kind  of  basis 
For  the  pre-arranged  assumption  55 

That  light  acts  the  same  as  sound-waves. 
And  waves  thus  necessitated, 

There  must  therefore  be  some  substance 
Of  which  waves  may  be  constructed; 

And  as  atmosphere  is  wanting  60 

In  the  vast  sidereal  regions 
Through  which  light  has  free  transmission, 
Air  thus  fails  to  aid  the  problem; — 

And  hence,  as  before  suggested. 

Some  imaginative  genius  65 

Secretly  invented  ether, — 

Of  the  nature  of  a “ solid,” 

More  like  “jelly”  than  like  fluid, 

As  distinctly  taught  by  Tyndall, — 
Forming  thus  substantial  basis  70 

For  this  undulating  process 
Which  sonorous  laws  required.* 

Hence  it  follows,  clear  as  daylight, 
Which  no  scientist  will  question, 

That  this  whole  ethereal  problem  75 

And  the  waves  of  light  based  on  it 
Must  be  void  of  all  foundation, 

And  must  be  repudiated 
As  a scientific  thesis 


* “ To  account  for  the  enormous  velocity  of  pro- 
pagation in  the  case  of  light,  the  substance  which 
transmits  it  is  assumed  to  be  of  both  extreme  elasticity 
and  extreme  tenuity.  This  substance  is  called  the 
Luminiferous  Ether.  It  fills  all  space;  it  surrounds 
the  atoms  of  bodies  ....  The  molecules  of  lu- 
minous bodies  are  in  a state  of  vibration.  The 
vibrations  are  taken  up  by  the  ether  and  transmitted 
through  it  in  waves,” Sec. — Tyndall  on  Light, p. 60. 

[On  page  259  of  “Lectures  on  Sound”  Professor 
Tyndall  admits  that  the  Undulatory  Theory  of 
Light  had  its  origin  in  the  observed  phenomena  of 
sonorous  waves.] 


* 

The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


60 

Should  sonorous  undulations 
Prove  a fallacy  of  science , — 

Which  they  will  most  positively, 

As  the  two  succeeding  chapters 

Shall  abundantly  establish.  5 

Briefly,  I invite  the  reader 
To  this  hypothetic  question 
Of  ethereal  undulations. 

As  a practical  example 

Of  nonentities  which  science  10 

Finds  no  trouble  in  employing, 

Even  making  them  essential 

And  of  paramount  importance 

In  great  scientific  problems 

Whilst  a God  repudiating  15 

As  of  no  account  whatever, 

And  the  soul  of  man  ignoring 
As  an  entity  of  being! 

First,  I may  premise  by  asking 
Is  it  possible  in  reason  20  I 

That  the  molecules  or  atoms 
Which  compose  the  diamond's  texture, 
Floating  in  this  so-called  ether, 

Are  so  separate  from  contact 

Or  so  loosely  flung  together  25 

As  to  meet  these  wave-conditions — 

Free  to  oscillate  and  vibrate 
And  partake  of  swinging  movements 
Such  as  must  occur  in  ripples — 

Or  that  aggregated  atoms  30 

In  compact  agglomerations, 

As  we  must  suppose  the  diamond, 

Can  find  room  to  change  positions 
“ To  and  fro,”  with  “ small  excursions, ” 
Always  seen  in  undulations? — 35 

If  this  should  be  claimed  as  forming 
Part  of  this  ethereal  problem, 

Which  will  scarcely  be  attempted, 

Is  it  probable  in  reason 

That  these  waves  within  the  diamond — 40 

I care  not  how  fine  they  may  be, 

If  the  millionth  of  a hair’s  breadth — 

Can  keep  up  their  oscillations 
And  their  “ to  and  fro  ” excursions 
Without  such  corjroreal  atoms  45 


Meeting,  clashing  with  each  other, 

And  the  texture  of  the  diamond 
Being  thus  destroyed  by  friction  ? 

If  there  be  no  real  friction 
Taking  place  among  the  atoms  50 

Which  compose  the  diamond’s  substance, 
Then  there  are  no  clashing  granules 
Thus  engaged  in  “small  excursions;” 
Hence  no  waves  or  undulations 
In  the  texture  of  the  diamond,  55 

Since  no  undulating  motion 
Can  occur  in  any  substance , 

Gas,  or  atmosphere,  or  water, 

Where  the  atoms  of  such  bodies 
Do  not  make  a slight  “ excursion  60 

To  and  fro"  (as  taught  by  Tyndall, 

As  will  soon  be  quoted  fully) 

Every  time  a ripple  passes, 

Called  its  “ amplitude  ” of  motion. 

And  if  this  be  truly  stated  65 

That  there  can  be  no  such  motion 
In  the  granules  of  the  diamond, 

As  would  be  if  undulations 
Should  occur  among  its  atoms, 

Then  must  rays  of  light  be  substance,  70 
Or  attenuated  matter, 

Passing  through  the  very  texture 
Of  what  constitutes  the  diamond, 

Without  waves  or  undulations, 

Friction,  contact,  or  displacement.*  75 

That  light  may  be  such  a substance 
As  can  pass  through  solid  diamond, 

Or  through  any  dense  formation 
Such  as  emerald  or  crystal, 

* There  is  but  one  conceivable  way  to  evade  the 
force  of  this  overwhelming  difficulty  involved  in 
the  clashing  and  grinding  of  the  diamond’s  mole- 
cules together  as  light-waves  pass  through  them, 
and  that  is  to  assume  the  undulations  confined  to 
the  ether-particles  circulating  within  the  diamond 
without  the  atomic  structure  of  the  diamond  ttselj 
being  disturbed ; or,  in  other  words,  that  the  “small 
excursion  to  and  fro”  called  the  “amplitude  of 
the  vibration,”  as  Professor  Tyndall  expresses  it, 
which  necessarily  takes  place  in  all  kinds  of  waves, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  corporeal  particles  of 


Chap.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Etc. 


61 


Without  physical  disturbance 
Or  displacement  of  its  atoms, 

Though  beyond  our  comprehension, 

Is  a mystery  no  greater 

Than  that  currents  from  a magnet  5 

’the  diamond,  but  consists  of  the  undulatory  motions 
of  the  ether  itself  freely  circulating  within  the  sub- 
stance of  this  hardest  of  all  bodies.  This,  however, 
falls  immensely  short  of  meeting  the  difficulty,  as 

I will  now  proceed  to  show. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Undulatory 
Theory  of  Light  had  its  origin  in  sonorous  waves, 
and  that  such  a notion  of  light  or  such  an  hypothe- 
sis as  ether-waves  would  never  have  been  thought 
of  even  by  the  most  visionary  scientist  but  for  that 
universally  accepted  theory  of  sound  which  was  at 
that  time  simply  taken  for  granted  by  the  whole 
world  without  stopping  to  think  whether  it  was 
based  on  correct  scientific  principles  or  not. 

Now  it  is  taught  by  all  writers  on  the  subject 
that  the  wave-motions  and  other  phenomena  in 
Sound  and  Light  are  exactly  similar  in  their  opera- 
tions : .the  one  system  of  waves  producing  on  the 
brain,  through  the  optic  nerve,  the  sensation  of 
light ; the  other  system  of  waves,  through  the  au- 
ditory nerve,  the  sensation  of  sound;  and  that,  as 
sound  consists  in  the  undulatory  motions  of  the  air , 
so  light  consists  in  the  undulatory  motions  of  ether. 
But  now  mark  the  unavoidable  continuation  of  the 
parallel, — in  fact,  the  most  important  and  natural 
analogy  existing  between  them.  When  sound 
passes  from  its  normal  medium  of  atmosphere  into 
gas,  water,  wood,  or  iron,  its  undulations  depend 
entirely  on  the  substance  or  molecular  structure  of 
the  gas,  water,  wood,  or  iron  through  which  it 
passes,  and  not  on  the  particles  of  air  which  may 
happen  to  be  circulating  within  those  various  sub- 
stances. Proof — Professor  Tyndall  says,  in  his 
“Lectures  on  Sound,”  page  47: — 

“The  velocity  of  sound  in  water  is  more  than 
four  limes  its  velocity  in  air.  The  velocity  of  sound 
in  iron  is  seventeen  times  its  velocity  in  air.  The 
velocity  of  sound  along  the  fiber  of  pine  wood  is  ten 
times  its  velocity  in  air." 

Showing  plainly  that  the  air  is  placed  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  water,  wood,  and  iron.  If  sonorous 
waves  in  iron  consist  in  the  oscillation  of  the  air- 
particles  circulating  within  the  pores  of  the  iron, 
then  what  causes  the  sound  to  travel  seventeen  times 
faster  in  iron  than  in  air?  Can  any  one  answer? 
Th.e  truth  is,  no  writer  on  the  subject  pretends  but 
that  sound  consists  in  the  undulations  or  vibratory 


(Proved  to  be  substantial  fluid, 

Since  they  move  corporeal  bodies) 

Penetrate  the  densest  metals 
And  the  most  imporous  structures 
Without  friction  or  displacement;  10 

motions  of  the  air  itself  when  passing  through  air ; 
and  when  passing  from  the  air,  its  normal  medium, 
into  iron,  wood,  or  water,  it  then  consists  in  the 
vibratory  motions  of  those  substances  respectively. 
Hence,  if  there  is  any  parallel  or  resemblance  be- 
tween the  two  wave-systems,  or  if  one  theory  could 
be  fairly  deduced  from  or  predicated  of  the  other, 
then  the  solid  particles  of  the  diamond  must  vibrate 
or  swing  “to  and  fro”  when  the  light-waves  pass 
through  it  from  their  normal  medium  of  ether.  To 
carry  this  convenient  hypothetic *  1 ‘ Luminiferous 
Ether”  into  the  substance  of  the  diamond,  as  does 
modern  science,  to  get  something  which  can  vibrate 
and  produce  this  “small  excursion  to  and  fro,” 
while  deducing  the  whole  light-theory  from  that  of 
sound,  when  we  can  not  carry  the  atmospheric 
waves  into  the  substance  of  the  iron  but  have  to 
depend  on  the  iron  itself  to  vibrate,  is  a scientific 
license  so  strained  and  manifestly  inconsistent  as 
to  be  unworthy  of  this  nineteenth  century,  and 
should  be  at  once  repudiated  by  every  scientist. 

It  is  thus  demonstrated — if  light  acts  by  undula- 
tions at  all,  and  if,  as  claimed  by  the  theory,  there 
is  a parallel  between  it  and  the  wave-theory  of 
sound,  with  a “small  excursion  to  and  fro”  of  the 
particles  constituting  its  waves — that  this  “ampli- 
tude of  vibration  ” must  actually  occur  among  the 
atoms  of  the  diamond  themselves;  and  hence  it 
follows  that  a diamond  would  necessarily  grind 
itself  to  powder  in  a single  second  by  the  clashing 
of  its  atoms  against  each  other,  since  “699,000,000,- 
000,000”  waves  of  light  dash  through  it  eveiy  sec- 
ond, as  estimated  by  Professor  Tyndall.  (“Lec- 
tures on  Light,”  p.  66.) 

This  single  fact  of  the  parallelism  between  air- 
waves and  ether-waves  in  the  undulatory  theories 
of  sound  and  light,  as  all  science  on  the  subject 
teaches,  conclusively  furnishes  the  quietus  of  ethereal 
undulations  at  the  start  of  the  argument,  since  the 
main  analogy  forbids  the  carrying  of  ether  into  the 
diamond  as  a basis  for  these  supposititious  waves. 
Hence,  as  ether  has  no  business  within  the  substance 
of  the  diamond  from  the  veiy  law  of  sound  to  which 
it  owes  its  origin,  since  air  has  no  business  in  iron 
for  the  propagation  of  sound-waves,  and  as  it  is 
clear  that  the  substance  of  the  diamond  can  not 


62 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Or  than  that  this  so-called  ether — 

With  the  nature  of  a “ solid,” 

More  like  “jelly”  than  a fluid, 

As  distinctly  taught  by  Tyndall — 

Should  thus  freely  wave  in  diamond  5 
Without  sensible  disturbance 
Of  its  molecules  or  atoms.* * 

Hence,  to  show  that  light  is  nothing 
But  a vibratory  movement , 

As  supposed  to  be  in  sound-waves,  10 
It  was  absolutely  needful 
That  this  ether  be  invented, — 

Even  “solid,”  like  a “jelly,” 

Yet  intangible  to  senses 

And  beyond  all  tests  of  science, — 15 

Without  any  use  whatever 

In  the  polity  of  nature 

Or  economy  of  physics 

Save  to  furnish  undulations 

Which  are  positively  useless,  20 

Solving  not  a single  problem 

Or  phenomenon  in  science 

Which  could  not  be  explicated 

undulate,  it  follows  incontrovertibly  that  undula- 
tions have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  propaga- 
tion of  light.  Is  not  this  deduction  a logical  neces- 
sity,— considering,  as  we  must,  the  Undulatory 
Theory  of  Light  based  on  and  wholly  dependent 
upon  the  wave-theory  of  sound  for  its  existence? 
It  may  therefore  be  safely  asserted  that  the  Undu- 
latory Theory  of  Light  has  fallen  to  the  ground 
over  this  single  difficulty,  unless  its  advocates  can 
show  some  valid  reason  why  ether  is  carried  into 
the  diamond  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing 
.waves,  while  its  homologue  — air — is  not  carried 
into  the  mass  of  iron  for  the  same  purpose.  As  no 
such  valid  reason  can  be  given  while  deducing  the 
wave-theory  of  light  from  the  wave-theory  of  sound, 
it  inevitably  follows  that  the  current  theory  of  light 
has  broken  down  right  here,  without  going  a step 
further. 

* “In  fact,  the  mechanical  properties  of  the  ether 
are  rather  those  of  a solid  than  of  an  air.  ” — “ The 
luminiferous  ether  has  definite  mechanical  proper- 
ties. It  is  almost  infinitely  more  attenuated  than 
any  known  gas,  but  its  properties  arc  those  of  a 
solid  rather  than  those  of  a gas.  Tt  resembles  jelly 
rather  than  air." — Tyndall  on  “ Light,”  p.  57. 


Better  far  by  light  as  substance 
Or  corpuscular  emissions,  25 

As  maintained  by  Isaac  Newton, 

With  one  simplified  addition, 

As  will  soon  be  made  apparent 
Even  to  the  superficial. 

Is  it  not  a fact  worth  noting,  30 

As  a comment  on  this  question 
Of  a “luminiferous  ether,” 

That  while  thus  assuming  substance 
Circulating  like  a “jelly” 

Through  the  hardest  of  all  bodies,  35 

Never  calling  it  in  question — 

Infinite  in  omnipresence — 

Through  immensity  expanding — 

Having  not  one  use  in  nature, 

Or  advantage  known  to  reason,  40 

Scientists  without  a scruple 
Or  a doubting  hesitation, 

Utterly  ignore  the  problem 

Of  an  Omnipresent  Being 

Having  intellectual  powers,  45 

And  can  see  no  use  whatever 

In  an  Infinite  Creator 

To  produce  this  world  of  wonders, 

With  ten  thousand  proofs  around  them 
Of  His  workmanship  and  presence,  50 

Nor  can  see  the  slightest  reason 
Favoring  the  human  spirit 
As  an  entity  substantial, 

Since  not  tangible  to  senses, 

Though  producing  demonstrations  55 

Of  its  presence  every  moment? 

Yes,  without  an  innuendo 
At  such  “superstitious  nonsense” 

As  a substance  permeating 

Solid  bodies  like  the  diamond,  60 

And  there  freely  undulating 

As  if  in  a perfect  vacuum, 

Scientists  like  Vogt  and  Haeckel 
Gravely  grasp  this  “jelly”  ether 
As  a most  important  substance,  65 

Though  ridiculously  useless, 

Just  because  it  smacks  of  “ science,” 


CiiAr.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Etc. 


63 


Without  which  all  light  would  vanish 
And  the  world  be  relegated 
To  the  limbo  of  Erebus! 

It  seems  odd  that  with  such  substance 
As  this  “ luminiferous  ether,”  5 

Quivering  like  a mass  of  “ jelly,” 

With  the  nature  of  a “ solid,” 

Filling  space  and  densest  structures, 
Science  should  have  been  so  troubled 
To  admit  the  light  as  substance,  10 

Or  the  heat  as  emanations, 

But  must  seek  some  “ Mode  of  Motion  ” 
Or  some  useless  “ undulations  ” 

To  explain  their  radiant  atoms. 

Mark  this  singular  objection  15 

Why  the  light  can  not  be  substance, 

As  Professor  Tyndall  urges, 

Since  the  very  smallest  atoms, 

If  of  any  weight  whatever, 

And  with  speed  of  light  projected,  20 
Entering  the  naked  pupil, 

Would  annihilate  the  vision.* 

Yet  this  scientist  most  strangely 
Quite  forgets  his  “jelly”  ether — 

More  the  nature  of  a “ solid  ” 25 

Than  of  atmosphere  or  gases — 

Flinging  waves  by  countless  millions 
Every  second  through  the  pupil, 

Yet  without  the  slightest  damage 
To  “so  delicate  an  organ”!  f 30 

Then  to  re-enforce  this  idea 
That  light  can  not  be  substantial 
Or  be  radiant  emissions 
He  adduces  illustrations 
From  experiments  recorded,  35 

Showing  that  a million  atoms 
Of  this  hypothetic  substance 


*“Considering  the  enormous  velocity  of  light  ,the 
particles , if  they  exist,  must  be  inconceivably  small; 
for  if  of  any  conceivable  weight,  they  would  in fallibly 
destroy  so  delicate  an  organ  as  the  eye.” — Notes  on 
Light,  p.  57. 

t "All  these  waves  enter  the  eye  in  a second.  In 
the  same  interval,  6gg, 000,000, 000,000  waves  of 
violet  light  enter  the  eye.  At  this  prodigious  rate 
is  the  retina  hit  by  the  waves  of  light.” — Tyndall 
on  “ Light,”  p.  66. 


Concentrated  to  a focus 
May  be  shot  against  the  smallest 
Spider’s  thread  without  the  slightest  40 
Movement  of  the  tiny  fiber.J 
Here  again  this  learned  writer, 

With  an  innocence  alluring, 

While  projecting  luminous  atoms, 
Concentrated  into  millions  45 

By  the  aid  of  lens  and  mirror, 

At  the  spider’s  thread  and  balance 
To  disprove  corporeal  substance, 

Seems  to  overlook  his  ether , 

And  unwittingly  was  shooting  50 

Waves  of  substance  like  a “ solid  ” — 

More  like  “jelly”  than  a fluid — 

Countless  millions  every  second 
At  that  very  thread  and  balance 
With  the  same  result  precisely ! 55 

But  to  show  the  useless  folly 
And  short-sighted  comprehension 
Of  these  childish  illustrations — 

For  they  can  be  only  puerile — 

Take  the  countless  myriad  atoms  60 

Of  the  odoriferous  substance 
From  a grain  of  musk,  for  instance, 

As  a practical  example — 

Which  no  one  can  doubt  or  question 
As  attenuated  matter — 65 

Radiating  from  their  fountain 
Till  they  fill  a hundred  churches, 

And  a hundred  thousand  persons 
Each  can  recognize  the  perfume 
By  his  delicate  olfaction,  70 

Yet  without  the  diminution 
Of  the  weight  of  odorous  substance 
Tested  by  the  finest  balance. 

Could  this  multitude  of  atoms. 

By  some  possible  contrivance,  75 

Be  collected,  and  by  lenses 

^“Millions  of  these  light  particles,  supposing 
them  to  exist,  concentrated  by  lenses  and  mirrors, 
have  been  shot  against  a balance  suspended  by  a 
single  spider’s  thread ; this  thread,  though  twisted 
18,000  times,  showed  no  tendency  to  untwist  itself; 
it  was  therefore  devoid  of  torsion.  But  no  ?notion 
due  to  the  impact  of  the  particles  was  even  in  this 
case  observed.” — Tyndall  on  “ Light,”  p.  57. 


64 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


Concentrated  to  one  granule 
And  then  shot  with  speed  of  light-rays 
At  the  spider’s  thread  referred  to 
It  would  probably  not  move  it, — 

While  perhaps  the  sense  of  vision  5 

Might  not  be  disturbed  the  slightest 
Should  the  whole  unnumbered  millions 
Of  those  atoms  strike  the  iris. 

Yet  such  odoriferous  granules 

Are  as  boulders  in  the  balance  10 

When  opposed  to  tiniest  monads, 

If  contrasted  with  those  atoms 
Radiating  from  the  tremors 
Of  the  astral  luminaries, 

Darting  through  the  stellar  heavens  15 
Eleven  million  miles  a minute, 

Or  the  still  more  tenuous  substance 
Which  composes  life  and  spirit. 

Thus  we  form  a feeble  idea 
Of  the  infinite  and  wondrous  20 

Substances  beyond  our  senses 
Which  defy  our  comprehension, — 

Even  utterly  prohibit 

Any  rational  conception 

Of  their  vast  attenuation.  25 

Yet  who  knows  but  grains  of  odor 
Radiating  from  a tulip 
Might  be  seen  were  eyes  adapted 
As  the  sense  of  smell  is  suited 
To  their  delicate  formation  30 

And  their  chemical  constituents? 

Or  how  know  we  but  such  granules 
May  be  yet  beheld  by  lenses 
When  the  substance  of  the  perfume 
Shall  be  charged  with  other  aura  35 
By  some  alchemistic  process 
Which  the  future  shall  develop, — 

Giving  them  a brilliant  color. 

As  the  molecules  of  sunlight 

May  be  seen  in  tails  of  comets  40 

Sweeping  at  their  perihelion, 

Colored  by  actinic  power 
Of  their  nuclei  and  aura 
Through  some  calorific  action 


Or  unknown  chromatic  influence  45 

Giving  physical  expression 
To  their  incorporeal  atoms?* 
Furthermore,  it  may  be  added, 

If  light  be  but  simple  movement, 

Or  the  undulatory  action  50 

Of  the  ether  in  the  diamond — 

Not  the  motion  of  its  granules — 

Then,  since  ether  fills  all  bodies, 

As  this  theory  assures  us, 

Why  should  not  the  light  shine  freely  55 
Through  an  ordinary  boulder , 

Just  as  well  as  through  a diamond 
Or  a mass  of  glass  or  crystal? 

Why,  in  fact,  should  any  object 

Cast  a shadow,  if  this  ether  60 

Literally  “ surrounds  the  atoms  ” 

Of  all  kinds  of  solid  bodies, 

And  if  light  be  undulations 
Of  such  omnipresent  substance? 

Even  if  the  form  of  atoms  65 

Or  molecular  arrangement 
Of  the  atoms  with  each  other 
Cause  opacity  of  structure, 

So  the  ether-waves  are  hidden 
While  thus  passing  through  a boulder,  70 
That  should  not  disturb  the  progress 
Of  continuous  waves  of  ether 
After  they  had  left  such  body ; — 

They  should  prosecute  their  journey 
After  passing  through  a sandstone,  75 

* The  hypothesis  here  intimated,  that  the  train 
of  a comet  may  be  caused  by  the  colored  rays  of 
sunlight  projected  into  space,  affected  by  some  un- 
known chemical  process  while  passing  through  the 
nucleus  or  photosphere  of  the  comet,  is  the  sugges- 
tion of  Professor  Tyndall,  cautiously  and  modestly 
thrown  out.  It  lacks  but  the  single  element  of  a 
cometic  atmosphere  encircling  the  nucleus  large 
enough  in  circumference  for  this  enormous  sweep 
of  the  comet’s  tail.  Some  substance  should  exist 
within  this  supposed  circle  to  receive  these  chemi- 
cally prepared  sun-jrays  and  display  their  chromatic 
tints,  and  nothing  would  seem  more  appropriate 
than  the  strange  envelope  which  left  fragments  in 
its  trail  to  illuminate  our  atmosphere  at  the  great 
November  meteoric  showers. 


Chap.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Etc. 


65 


As  before  the  ripples  struck  it, 

Since  this  theory  supposes 
Continuity  unbroken 
In  this  hypothetic  “jelly.” 

Hence  our  reason'  should  assure  us  5 

That  such  all-pervading  substance 

As  this  light-producing  ether 

Should  obliterate  the  shadow 

Of  the  most  opaque  formation 

Just  as  if  it  were  a crystal.  10 

Not  so,  if  the  light  be  substance, 

Or  material  emanations, 

Which  might  penetrate  some  bodies 
While  some  others  might  resist  it, 

As  electrical  discharges  15 

Freely  penetrate  some  bodies 
And  refuse  to  pass  through  others, — 
Which  could  not  be  predicated 
Of  ethereal  undulations, 

Since  that  hypothetic  substance  20 

Is  supposed  to  fill  all  bodies, — 

Granite  just  the  same  as  diamond. 

It  would  seem  the  “Undulatory 
Theory  ” must  have  arisen 
From  the  greater  difficulty  25 

Of  supposing  rays  to  travel 
In  the  form  of  emanations 
Many  million  miles  a minute, 

Or  almost  two  hundred  thousand 

In  the  period  of  a clock-beat.  30 

Yet  this  undulatory  doctrine, 

If  but  casually  considered, 

Forms  a still  more  startling  problem; 

For  if  light  does  not  thus  travel 

As  corpuscular  emissions,  35 

It  consists  of  undulations 

Which  require  equal  power 

By  a vibratory  tremor 

Of  some  incandescent  aura 

At  the  distant  stellar  body  40 

As  the  primal  imputation, 

Whence  the  first  wave  leads  the  second, 
That  the  next,  and  that  the  next  one, 
Driven  off  by  such  vibrations, 


Each  wave  pressing  on  through  ether  45 
Actually  the  entire  distance 
By  that  single  tremulous  motion, 

Just  as  water-waves  are  driven, 

Caused  by  some  disturbing  action, — 
Which,  by  counting  corrugations,  50 

Crests  and  sinuses  thus  moving, 

Or  their  wave-like  troughs  and  ridges, 
With  the  “amplitude  ” of  motion, 

Or  the  to  arid  fro  excursion 

Of  the  molecules  of  ether,  55 

As  in  waves  of  all  descriptions, 

Really  makes  the  distance  double 
Which  the  impulse  has  to  travel, 

Following  such  undulations. 

Thus  a power  is  exerted  60 

At  the  luminiferous  body 
By  its  hypothetic  tremors, 

On  each  hypothetic  ripple 

Of  that  hypothetic  ether 

Giving  it  an  imputation  65 

Which  keeps  on  without  retarding 

Or  the  slightest  diminution 

Eleven  million  miles  a minute, 

While  this  constant  operation 
Is  thus  carried  on  by  nothing  70 

Through  the  whole  enormous  distance, 
Save  one  instant  stellar  tremor 
To  each  wave  at  time  of  starting; — 

That  is,  if  no  real  substance 

Can  accompany  the  process  75 

To  excite  the  undulation, 

Thus  involving  useless  problems 

And  phenomena  profounder 

Tenfold  than  the  supposition 

Here  maintained  of  light  as  substance.*  80 

* I do  not  call  in  question  tlie  hypothesis  that 
rays  of  light  are  generated  by  vibratory  action  in 
the  luminiferous  body,  the  same  as  sound  is  pro- 
duced by  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  sonorific 
instrument.  It  seems  reasonable  that  the  molecu- 
lar tremors  of  the  incandescent  photosphere  of  the 
stellar  body  should  generate  these  light-particles 
(as  I assume  them  to  be),  and  that  they  are  then 
sent  off  through  space  in  pulses  or  discharges  by 
some  unknown  radiating  force,  such  discharg 


66 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


If  light  be  but  undulations 
Of  this  hypothetic  substance 
Called  the  Luminiferous  Ether, 

Why  not  claim  that  magnetism — 

Which  can  move  a bar  of  iron  5 

Through  a plate  of  glass  or  copper — 

Is  but  vibratory  motion 
Of  some  other  kind  of  ether 
Suited  to  magnetic  action, 

Filling  space  and  permeating  10 

Atoms  of  the  densest  structures, 

And  thus  duplicate  the  ethers 
Absolutely  co-existing 
In  one  individual  substance? 

And  electrical  discharges  15 


synchronizing  with  the  vibratory  action  which  gen- 
erates them.  There  seems  to  be  a natural  and 
beautiful  analogy  existing  between  Light  and  Sound 
in  most  of  their  phenomena;  and  it  therefore  is  not 
at  all  surprising  that  the  Undulatory  Theory  of 
light  should  have  been  suggested  by  what  was 
universally  supposed  to  be  the  true  theory  of  sound, 
namely,  Sonorous  Undulations. 

Assuming  the  particles  of  light  to  be  emitted  in 
luminous  pulses  or  discharges  from  the  tremulous 
surface  of  a stellar  body,  such  discharges  may  be 
supposed  to  succeed  each  other  with  an  incom- 
mensurable rapidity  as  compared  to  sound-pulses 
even  from  the  most  rapidly  vibrating  string ; and 
hence  such  successive  discharges  of  light-particles 
can  wholly  take  the  place  of  ethereal  waves  in  the 
various  phenomena  observed  by  experimental  phil- 
osophers. 

Suppose  that,  instead  of  a shell-like  wave  of  ether 
sent  off  by  the  tremor  of  the  star’s  luminous  envel- 
ope, a shell  of  light  itself  is  discharged,  consisting 
of  an  almost  infinite  number  of  luminous  particles, 
and  that  these  shell-like  discharges  of  substance 
succeed  each  other  at  each  tremor  of  the  light- 
producing  aura  the  same  precisely  as  shell-like 
waves  of  ether  are  supposed  to  succeed  each  other. 
Is  there  a single  phenomenon  witnessed  in  con- 
vergence, dispersion,  abaration,  diffraction,  calo- 
rcscence,  fluorescence,  reflection,  refraction,  or  as 
the  result  of  any  experiment  in  spectrum  analysis, 
now  explained  by  assuming  light  to  consist  of  a 
series  of  ethereal  waves, which  can  not  be  as  readily 
explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  a succession  of  shell- 
like discharges  of  light  itself?  Professor  Tyndall 


Might,  instead  of  being  substance 
Or  attenuated  matter, 

Prove  but  simple  undulations, 

Or  a kind  of  mode  of  motion 

Of  some  new  ethereal  substance,  20 

And  thus  triplicate  the  ethers 

Held  within  the  solid  texture 

Of  a bar  of  gold  or  silver 

At  one  instant  of  duration. 

Why,  in  fact,  not  make  out  fragrance  25 
But  another  mode  of  motion 
Rather  than  a real  substance? 

Call  it  but  the  undulations 

Of  an  odoriferous  ether 

Put  in  motion  by  the  tremors  30 

claims  that  many  of  the  above-named  phenomena 
can  only  be  explained  satisfactorily  by  ether-waves, 
and  that  the  emission- theory  of  Newton  falls  im- 
mensely short  of  giving  a satisfactory  solution.  But 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  old  corpuscular 
theory  of  light  lacked  this  essential  element  of 
shell-like  or  wave-like  discharges,  synchronizing 
with  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  luminous  body. 

Let  such  a scientist  as  Helmholtz  first  bring  his 
great  knowledge  and  close  experimental  observa- 
tion to  bear  on  these  various  problems,  and  attempt 
their  solution  on  the  basis  here  laid  down,  namely, 
that  light  consists  of  luminous  wave-like  discharges 
of  substantial  atoms  instead  of  actual  waves  of 
another  substance  called  ether,  and  if  he  can  not 
explain  convergence,  refraction,  dispersion,  and  all 
other  phenomena  now  supposed  only  explicable  by 
ethereal  waves,  just  as  readily  and  with  much  less 
complication,  I will  then  abandon  all  pretension  to 
the  least  scientific  perspicacity.  Till  this  is  done, 
I shall  not  doubt  the  position  here  assumed, 
namely,  that  had  the  old  corpuscular  theory  in  the 
time  of  Newton  included  the  wave-like  discharges 
of  luminous  atoms  in  synchronous  harmony  with 
the  vibratory  tremors  of  luminiferous  bodies,  there 
would  have  been  not  the  least  necessity  for  the 
Undulatory  Theory  of  Light  to  explain  its  various 
phenomena,  and  hence  that  such  an  hypothesis 
never  could  have  originated  except  as  a mere 
speculation  growing  out  of  the  erroneous  suppo- 
sition that  sound  consists  of  atmospheric  undula- 
tions,— a theory  which,  but  for  this  re-enforcement, 
might  possibly  have  been  exploded  without  waiting 
till  the  year  of  grace  1S77. 


Chap.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Ltc. 


67 


Of  the  rose  or  honeysuckle, — 

As  there  seems  no  use  whatever 
In  admitting  odor  substance, 

As  so  frankly  done  by  Tyndall, 

When  some  sort  of  undulation  5 

Or  supposititious  “ether” 

W as  so  easily  invented.* 

Candidly  I ask  these  writers 
What  is  gained  by  so  persisting 
In  denying  light,  caloric,  10 

Gravitation,  magnetism, 

As  substantial  emanations, 

When  to  make  them  “ modes  of  motion  ” 
They  are  absolutely  driven 
To  invent  some  other  substance,  15 

Many  times  more  dense  it  may  be, 

Of  which  waves  may  be  constructed, 

Even  making  it  like  “jelly,” 

To  fulfill  the  use  intended? 

Scientists  imbrangle  questions  20 

Sometimes  by  their  postulata, 

Which  would  otherwise  be  simple, — 

Thus  by  change  of  words  producing 
To  the  unscholastic  reader 
Almost  meaningless  faragoes,  25 

With  such  multifold  arcana 
Covered  up  by  “ modes  of  motion  ” 

And  “ ethereal  undulations,” 

That  confusion  worse  confounded 
Rather  than  elucidation  30 

Often  takes  the  place  of  science. 

Why  should  not  the  various  forces 
Stand  as  substances  of  nature 
Formed  of  molecules  or  atoms, 

Making  each  but  tenuous  matter,  35 

Just  as  air  or  gas  is  substance, 

And  thus  wholly  obviating 
Recondite  and  useless  verbiage 
In  attempts  at  explanation? 

Then  the  force  of  gravitation  40 

* “In  the  sense  of  touch  the  nerves  are  moved 
by  the  contact  of  the  body  felt;  in  the  sense  of  smell 
they  are  stirred  by  the  infinitesimal  particles  of  the 
odorous  body;  in  the  sense  of  hearing  they  are 
shaken  by  the  vibrations  of  the  air.” — Tyndall 
on  “ Light,”  p.  57. 


Would  become  a real  something 
In  the  truest  acceptation, — 

Something  with  which  thought  can  grapple, 

Of  which  mind  can  take  cognition 

As  an  entity  in  nature,  45 

Passing  from  material  bodies 

To  each  other  in  such  manner 

As  to  draw  upon  their  atoms 

As  if  unseen  threads  were  fastened, 

While  another  kind  of  substance  50 

Pushes  or  repels  the  atoms 

By  unseen  projecting  pistons 

As  exemplified  in  magnets 

When  their  poles  oppose  each  other. 

If  the  force  of  gravitation — 55 

Which  draws  bodies  toward  each  other — 
Be  not  formed  of  real  atoms, 

Or  be  not  intrinsic  substance 
Just  as  much  as  air  or  gases, 

Then  it  is  a name  for  nothing  60 

Of  which  man  can  form  an  idea 
As  an  actuating  power, 

Though  it  permeates  all  bodies 
Howsoever  dense  their  structures, 

Linking  molecules  together  65 

By  invisible  ligation, — 

Reaching  from  the  sun  to  planets 
And  from  planets  to  each  other, 

Binding  them  by  chains  of  magic, 

Keeping  them  within  their  orbits,  70 

Though  when  near  to  one  another 
Causing  many  perturbations, 

Which  in  time  are  re-adjusted, 

Subject  to  the  laws  now  acting 

Which  combine  to  form  ellipses  75 

Yet  to  be  explained  by  science, 

Reaching  from  the  moon  to  ocean, 
Swelling  up  its  tides  by  drawing 
On  the  mass  of  molten  fire 
Which  the  crust  of  earth  imprisons,  80 
As  this  unseen  lunar  network, 

Formed  of  threads  of  gravitation, 

Sweeps  along  the  watery  surface 
Till  the  ocean’s  flexile  bottom, 

Like  a diaphragm  expanding, 


85 


68 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Heaves  above  the  billowy  furnace, 

Aiding  by  these  daily  pulses 
Nature’s  everlasting  rhythm. 

I care  not  what  words  or  phrases 
Designate  these  laws  of  nature,  5 

Or  how  hairs  are  split  by  making 
Words  convey  no  settled  idea 
As  to  these  substantial  forces, 

Using  potency  or  impulse 

Or  dynamical  propulsion  10 

As  a verbal  substitution 

For  intrinsic  forms  of  matter 

Which  are  God’s  far-reaching  levers, 

Mystifying  by  mere  verbiage 

What  should  be  as  clear  as  sunlight,  15 

No  man  can  conceive  the  idea, 

By  whatever  stretch  of  fancy, 

Of  one  object  at  a distance, 

Free  from  physical  connection, 

Being  jostled  by  another  20 

Or  receiving  any  impulse 
By  which  motion  is  imparted, 

Without  some  connecting  substance 

Absolutely  interpassing 

’Twixt  such  sympathetic  bodies, — 25 

Matters  not  how  fine  its  texture 

Or  intangible  to  senses, 

Or  how  much  attenuated 
Be  its  subtilty  of  structure, 

It  is  present  notwithstanding  30 

As  an  absolute  connection, 

Linking  such  attracted  bodies, — 

Else  effects  are  caused  by  nothing , 

Which  amounts  to  simple  nonsense, 

As  all  sane  minds  must  acknowledge.  35 

So  distinctly  does  the  idea 
Force  itself  upon  the  reason 
That  no  attrahent  whatever 
Can  produce  a distant  movement 
Or  cause  gravitating  impulse  40 

Without  absolute  connection 
With  the  body  thus  attracted, 

That  the  great  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 

Who  discovered  gravitation, 

Claimed  that  ether  was  such  substance,  45  I 


And  that  its  mysterious  atoms 
Linked  together  heavenly  bodies, 

Through  which  gravitation  acted, — 

Just  as  physicists  now  claim  it 

As  the  medium  of  light-rays.*  50 

But  to  show  how  inefficient 
Is  such  hypothetic  ether 
As  a mere  connecting  medium 
To  account  for  gravitation 
And  its  universal  drawing,  55 

Which  seemed  quite  enough  for  Newton, 
We  have  only  to  consider 
Ether  as  quiescent  substance — 

Even  taking  it  for  granted — 

And  inert  till  agitated  60 

Or  its  atoms  given  motion 
By  some  actuating  impulse, 

Such  as  luminous  vibrations. 

Just  as  well  might  air  and  water, 

As  communicating  media,  65 

Draw  two  separated  bodies 
Which  might  chance  to  float  within  them, 
Bringing  them  with  force  together, 

As  to  make  quiescent  ether 

Act  the  part  of  gravitation.  70 

Strange  that  such  a man  as  Newton, 
When  conceiving  some  connection 
Linking  attrahents  together 
To  account  for  drawing-motion 
Could  not  think  just  one  step  further,  75 
Or  conceive  that  gravitation 
Might  itself  be  real  substance 
Of  invisible  formation, — 

Chords  of  force  connecting  bodies, 

Spun  from  each  corporeal  atom,  80 

While  their  molecules,  like  bobbins, 

Reel  incessantly  these  force-threads, 

Till  the  objects  thus  united 

* In  a letter  to  Bentley,  Sir  Isaac  Newton  re- 
marks: “That  gravity  should  he  innate,  inherent, 
and  essential  to  matter,  so  that  one  body  may  act  on 
another  at  a distance  through  a vacuum,  without 
the  mediation  of  anything  else  by  and  through 
which  their  action  and  force  may  be  conveyed 
from  one  to  the  other,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity 
that  I believe  no  man  who  has  in  philosophical 
matters  a competent  facility  of  thinking,  can  ever 
' fall  into  it." 


CHAP.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light , Gravitation , Etc . 


69 


Should  be  fully  brought  in  contact, — 
After  which  these  thread-like  cables 
Can  be  well  supposed  to  hold  them 
In  their  place  like  ships  at  anchor. 

But  should  force  then  separate  them,  5 
As  when  heavy  weights  are  lifted, 

Then  the  molecules,  unwinding, 

Pay  out  line,  still  firmly  fastened 
To  their  hypothetic  bobbins, 

Which  no  counter-force  can  sever.  10 

Then,  however  great  the  distance 
Which  shall  separate  such  bodies, 

Will  these  threads  of  force  continue, 

With  their  unseen  calligation, 

To  indefinite  extension,  15 

Growing  weaker  in  the  ratio 
Of  the  square  of  separation, 

Just  as  caoutchouc  threads  grow  weaker 
As  to  their  elastic  tension, 

Which  diminishes  in  ratio  20 

Of  their  length  as  thus  extended. 

Thus  assuming  Nature’s  forces 
As  attenuated  matter, 

All  phenomena  now  witnessed 

In  that  so-called  correlation  25 

Of  the  various  active  forces, 

And  the  mutual  conversion 
Of  each  into  any  other, 

Are  at  once  elucidated 

And  explained  to  satisfaction.  30 

If  force  be,  however,  only 
Some  unthinkable  expression 
Of  unknowable  causation 
Of  which  mind  has  no  cognition, 

And  from  which  no  connotation  35 

Yields  mentality  a basis, 

As  one  would  infer  from  Spencer, 

Then  no  possible  conception 
Can  be  formed  of  transformation 
Of  one  force  into  another,  40 

More  than  changing  cold  to  shadow, 

Or  one  nothing  to  another. 

But  if  light  and  heat  be  substance, 

Or  attenuated  matter, 

I care  not  how  fine  their  atoms, 


Or  how  opposite  their  texture, 

One  converted  to  the  other 
Is  like  changing  anorgana, 

Or  pure  inorganic  matter, 

Into  vegetable  fiber,  50 

And  in  turn  the  vegetation 

Into  blood  and  bone  and  muscle, — 

Facts  well  ascertained  by  science, 

Of  which  mind  can  form  conception. 

Thus  electrical  discharges,  55 

As  an  entity  substantial, 

May  be  readily  converted 
Into  heat  and  magnetism— 

Gravitation  into  motion; — 

Motion  then  becomes,  by  friction,  60 

Electricity,  caloric, 

Light,  and  sound,  and  every  other 
Force  of  which  we  form  cognition. 

Make  them  anything  but  substance, 

And  at  once  we  make  them  nothing:  65 

Light  is  just  the  same  as  darkness, 

Since  they  are  conceiveless  ideas; 

Sound  is  nothing  more  than  stillness, 

Since  unthinkable  as  essence; 

Weight  and  levity  resemble,  70 

Having  no  material  basis; 

And  the  idea  of  conversion, 

Or  of  forces  correlating, 

If  without  substantial  essence, 

Is  like  making  two  negations  75 

Interact  to  form  a third  one, 

Just  as  vacuum  and  silence 
Might  combine  to  form  a shadow. 

All  our  troubles  in  conceiving 
Gravitation,  magnetism,  80 

Electricity,  caloric. 

Light,  and  even  life,  as  matter 
Of  unknown  attenuation, 

Are  our  superficial  ideas 
And  our  usual  gross  conceptions  85 

Of  the  substances  around  us, — 

Almost  tacitly  ignoring, 

With  a very  few  exceptions, 

Those  which  do  not  strike  the  senses 
As  a tangible  existence. 


45 


90 


70 


The  Problem  of  H innan  Life. 


It  would  seem  the  air  was  given 
By  the  Infinite  Creator 
As  connecting  link  of  substance 
’Twix,t  our  spirits  and  gross  matter, — 
Leading  us  by  graduation  5 

From  our  puerile  impressions 
As  to  man’s  intrinsic  nature, 

To  the  real  and  substantial 
Though  invisible  existence; 

Just  as  evolution-writers  10 

See  in  fossil  pterodactyls 
Steps  of  physical  transition 
Linking  birds  with  alligators. 

Air  would  seem  to  be  the  lever 
Which  might  lift  the  human  reason  15 

From  its  crude  and  sensuous  ideas 
And  its  limited  perceptions 
Of  invisible  causation 
And  the  manifested  forces 
As  intrinsic  forms  of  matter,  26 

To  that  rational  and  real 
Entity  of  living  essence 
Centering  in  the  mental  powers 
And  their  unseen  organism; 

For  this  circumambient  substance  25 

(Though  we  test  and  weigh  its  atoms 
And  observe  its  force  in  motion, 

Hurling  and  uprooting  forests, 

Scattering  our  barns  and  dwellings 
As  if  built  of  straws  and  feathers,)  30 
When  quiescent  is  as  nothing 
Of  which  sense  can  form  cognition, 

As  we  neither  see  nor  hear  it, 

Feci  nor  smell  nor  taste  its  atoms. 

Yet  this  entity  supplies  us  35 

With  the  very  vital  essence 

Which  adapts  our  organism 

And  its  physiologic  functions 

As  an  earthly  habitation 

To  that  substantive  existence  40 

And  intangible  quintessence 

Which  endows  the  human  outline 

With  imperishable  ego. 

If  true  scientific  knowledge, 


Without  any  view  whatever  45 

To  pecuniary  advantage, 

Be  an  object  worth  pursuing, — 

If  men  spend  a half  a lifetime 
In  the  most  profound  researches 
On  some  abstract  law  of  science  50 

Or  some  philosophic  problem, 

Such  as  speed  of  light,  for  instance, — 
Which,  in  point  of  money  value, 

Is  not  worth  a single  farthing, 

Though  it  may  immortalize  them, — ' 55 

If  it  be  the  pride  and  glory 

Of  this  age  of  great  achievements 

That  discoveries  in  science 

Take  a paramount  position 

Over  all  our  other  progress, — 60 

If  it  be  of  such  importance, 

As  a single  illustration, 

That  the  distance  of  our  planet 
From  the  sun  should  be  determined 
To  the  very  smallest  fraction,  65 

That  great  fleets  be  sent  by  nations 
To  far-off  oceanic  islands 
For  the  record  of  a transit , — 

Then  the  questions  here  presented — 

With  which  life  in  all  its  details  70 

And  each  hour’s  occupation 
Bring  us  constantly  in  contact — 

And  the  arguments  submitted, 

Honestly  if  not  profoundly, 

Proving  all  our  former  teaching  75 

And  philosophy  fallacious, 

Should  be  worthy  of  attention, 

And  I doubt  not  will  receive  it 
At  the  hands  of  learned  writers. 

Here  I may  remark,  in  passing,  80 
I am  not  among  the  number 
Wrho  believe  that  truths  of  science 
And  religious  intuition, 

With  the  worship  thence  outgrowing, 

Are  antagonistic  factors.  . 85 

All  religious  truth  whatever, 

Based  on  evidence  established, 

And  all  facts  transpiring  round  us 


Ciiai-.  IV. 


The  Nature  of  Light,  Gravitation , Etc. 


Or  phenomena  of  Nature 

Of  which  we  have  truthful  knowledge 

Must  alike  be  truths  of  science , — 

Since  there  is  no  human  knowledge, 
Based  upon  sufficient  data, 

Not  embraced  within  its  meaning. 

Hence  the  useless,  foolish  onslaughts, 
Of  a few  religious  bigots 
On  the  tendencies  of  science 
To  supplant  religious  ideas, 

And  the  equally  preposterous 
Ill-advised  antagonism 
Of  some  scientific  writers 
To  religious  institutions, 

Deprecating  them  as  priestcraft, 
Viewing  them  as  moral  presses 
To  contract  the  mental  powers 
And  curtail  the  range  of  knowledge, — 
Forming  thus  a weak  conception 
From  their  scientific  standpoint 
Of  what  constitutes  religion, 

When  the  scientific  datum — 

Possibly  a bald  assumption, 

Leading  to  the  rash  conclusion — 

Might  be  rendered  nugatory 
Cy  another  explication, 

And  its  facts  thus  metamorphosed 
Shown  to  be  corroborative 
Of  the  hand  of  God  in  Nature 
And  the  great  truths  of  religion, 

Which  its  facts  had  seemed  to  jostle, 
Showing  thus  how  weak  and  doubtful 
Are  these  so-called  “laws  of  science,” 
As  completely  illustrated 
By  this  theory  in  question, 

Held  as  truth  for  generations 
Without  one  to  even  doubt  it, 

But  now  fully  demonstrated 
As  a fallacy  of  science. 

If  light  be,  as  I have  argued, 

But  material  emanations 
Or  corpuscular  emissions 
From  a luminiferous  body, 

Then  it  is  a simple  problem 
How  heat  may  be  generated 


71 

And  its  rays  diffused  and  scattered, 

Even  when  produced  by  friction, 
Corresponding  in  its  process 
To  the  vibratory  action 
By  which  sound  and  light  are  gendered.  50 

When  these  various  “Modes  of  Motion” 
(For  they  are  alike  in  essence, 

Based  upon  the  one  great  idea 
That  sound  is  but  undulation) 

Shall  have  been  resolved  to  substance  55 
Or  corpuscular  emissions, 

Which  must  be  when  one  has  yielded 

To  unquestioned  demonstration 

(As  the  nebulous  formations 

Of  an  earlier  age  of  science  60 

Have  resolved  themselves  to  systems 

Of  unnumbered  astral  bodies 

Under  telescopic  power), 

Then  will  every  force  in  Nature — 

Not  excepting  gravitation,  65 

Spirit,  life,  and  mental  powers, — 

Also  be  resolved  to  substance, 

As  a part  of  that  Existence 

Who  formed  all  things  for  His  pleasure. 

Then  will  no  doubt  be  discovered  70 
By  some  masterly  observer 
With  the  genius  of  a Helmholtz 
Or  the  powers  of  a Newton, 

Who  can  grasp  the  whole  arcana 
Of  these  enigmatic  questions,  75 

Means  to  solve  the  various  problems 
And  phenomena  now  witnessed 
In  light’s  wondrous  operations, 

Such  as  colors  of  the  spectra, 

Radiation  and  absorption,  £0 

Interference  and  diffraction, 

Aberration  and  dispersion, 

Calorescence,  fluorescence, 

Catacoustics  and  dioptrics, 

Concentration  by  convergence,  85 

Or  reflection  and  refraction, 

On  the  law  enunciated 
Based  on  luminous  discharges , 

Now  thought  only  explicable 
By  ethereal  undulations.  go 


5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


72 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Difficulties  may  impede  him 
In  the  thorough  explanation 
Of  these  photologic  problems, 

Since  their  inmost  penetralia 

Must  be  sought  from  other  standpoints  5 

And  through  other  apparatus 

Yet  unknown  to  modern  science, 

But  such  trifling  difficulties 
Will  appear  to  him  as  nothing 
(Aided  by  this  new  departure  10 

Of  corpuscular  discharges) 

When  compared  to  those  now  met  with 
In  ethereal  undulations, 

With  a substance  like  a “jelly” 
Circulating  in  a vacuum  15 

And  through  solid  blocks  of  crystal. 
Hopefully  and  yet  with  patience 
Shall  I wait  to  hail  the  advent 
Of  the  genius  thus  foreshadowed, 

Who  shall  grasp  these  marvelous  problems 
And  unfold  their  hidden  secrets,  20 

Demonstrating  by  the  power 
Of  ripe  scientific  knowledge 
What  is  here  but  crudely  hinted. 

Until  we  can  grasp  the  idea  25 

That  the  universe  around  us 
Teems  with  substances  unnumbered 
As  the  parts  of  God’s  arcana 
And  His  cryptic  modes  of  working, 

Which  defy  our  tests  of  science,  30 

Scales  and  microscopic  lenses, 

We  see  only  half  through  Nature, 


And  that  half  but  very  dimly, 

Having  but  the  crudest  ideas 

Of  her  stores  of  secret  wonders  35 

Yet  to  be  revealed  to  mortals, 

When  the  soul’s  ear  tuned  and  cultured, 
And  the  mind’s  eye  educated, 

With  the  mental  scope  expanded 
By  the  spirit-evolution,  40 

Hears  the  sound  of  Nature’s  rhythm 
As  substantial  emanations, 

Sees  light’s  luminiferous  tremors 
As  corpuscular  emissions, 

Views  electrical  discharges  45 

As  the  verities  of  Nature, 

Stops  magnetic  streams  and  currents 
As  if  ponderable  granules, 

Gathers  up  the  grains  of  fragrance 
As  we  now  would  gather  petals,  50 

Feels  caloric’s  radiant  pulses 
As  the  substantial  soul  of  fire, 

Looks  at  force  of  gravitation 
As  eternal  cords  of  substance 
Binding  all  material  bodies, — 55 

Then  the  elevated  spirit, 

By  its  own  self-apperception, 

Viewing  Nature  through  the  lenses 
Of  the  soul’s  grand  microcosm. 

May  behold  the  vital  essence,  60 

Instinct,  life,  and  mental  powers 
Of  each  sentient,  moving  creature, 

As  an  entity  substantial, 

Each  a dro'p  from  out  the  fountain 
Of  God’s  infinite  existence.  65 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


73 


Chapter  V. 


EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND.— RE  VIE  IV  OF  PROFS. 
TYNDALL,  HELMHOLTZ , AND  MAYER. 


The  Wave-Theory  of  Sound  Assailed. — A New  Hypothesis  of  Substantial  Sonorous  Corpuscles 
Proposed. — The  Difference  between  the  two  Hypotheses  Pointed  Out. — No  Middle  Ground  is  Possible 
between  the  two. — Hence,  if  Wave-Motion  Breaks  Down  the  Corpuscular  Hypothesis  must  be  Admitted. 
— All  Phenomena  of  Sound  claimed  by  the  Writer  to  be  Explicable  on  the  basis  of  Substantial  Pulses. — 
Several  Illustrations  Given. — Sympathetic  Vibration  Explained. — Resonance  Proved  to  be  Utterly 
Inexplicable  by  the  Wave-Theory. — Many  Illustrations  brought  to  bear. — The  Superficiality  of  Physi- 
cists Pointed  Out. — Laughable  Illustrations  from  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz. — Resonance  Explained. — 
The  True  Law  of  Sound-Generation  given  for  the  first  time. — Magazine  Explosions  Considered,  and 
Turned  Against  the  Wave-Theory. — Professor  Mayer’s  Unphilosophical  Reasoning  Reviewed. — The 
Falling  Pitch  of  a Locomotive-Whistle  on  Passing  a Station  Considered. — Other  Objections  Answered. 
— Reflection  and  Convergence  of  Sound  Explained. — ‘"Condensations  and  Rarefactions”  shown  to  be 
Fatal  to  the  Wave-Theory. — The  Illustration  of  the  Stridulation  of  a Locust  shown  to  be  Disastrous 
to  the  Wave-Hypothesis  in  many  ways. — Professor  Mayer’s  Fatal  Admissions. — A Locust  must  exert 
Millions  of  Tons  of  Mechanical  Force  by  the  Motion  of  its  Legs  if  the  Wave-Theory  is  true. — Shown 
in  Numerous  Ways. — A Serious  Scientific  Mistake  Perpetrated  by  Professor  Tyndall. — The  Propaga- 
tion of  Sound  by  Means  of  Sonorous  Corpuscles  Explained  and  Contrasted  with  Wave-Motion. — The 
Discrepancy  Discovered  by  Newton  of  174  feet  a Second  in  Sound-Velocity  Fatal  to  the  Theory. — 
Laplace’s  Solution  Proved  Fallacious. — The  Law  of  Sound-Velocity,  or  the  Relation  of  Density  to 
Elasticity,  Examined. — Amusing  Self-Contradictions  of  Professor  Tyndall. — Why  has  the  Current 
Theory  of  Sound,  if  False,  not  been  Assailed  before? — An  Overwhelming  Argument  against  the  Theory 
drawn  from  the  Supposition  of  Tympanic  Vibration.  — Over-Tones,  Resultant  Tones,  &c.,  Examined. — 
Plelmholtz’s  Analysis  of  the  Ear  Reviewed. — His  Numerous  Self-Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies 
Pointed  Out. — Beautiful  Analogies  in  Nature  favorable  to  the  Corpuscular  Hypothesis. 


Up  to  this  point  in  the  investigation  of 
the  so-called  natural  forces  or  modes  of 
motion,  I have  only  hinted  that  Sound,  as 
well  as  Light  and  Heat,  must,  in  the  very 
nature  and  fitness  of  things,  be  a substan- 
tial entity,  consisting  of  corpuscular  emis- 
sions or  some  kind  of  atomic  emanations. 
I now  come  to  the  work  of  argument  and 
proof,  and  shall  endeavor  to  satisfy  the 
reader,  in  this  and  the  following  chapter, 
however  exacting  he  may  be,  not  only  that 
the  above  position  is  every  way  reasonable 
and  probably  true,  from  innumerable  facts 
and  analogies,  but  that  the  current  and 
universally  accepted  wave-theory  of  sound 


is  demonstrably  a pure  and  simple  fallacy 
of  science,  founded  upon  the  most  super- 
ficial misapprehensions  of  Nature  and  her 
laws, — thus  rendering  the  substantial  na- 
ture of  sound  logically  sustained  by  ex- 
cluding the  only  other  possible  assump- 
tion— wave-motion. 

I am  aware  of  the  magnitude  of  the  task 
I have  undertaken  to  perform,  arid  have 
considered  well  the  full  import  and  conse- 
quences of  assuming  in  this  seventh  decade 
of  the  nineteenth  century  to  overturn  an 
established  theory  of  science, — especially 
a theory  like  that  of  Sound,  which  has  not 
only  stood  unshaken  for  centuries,  but  has 


74 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


never  been  so  much  as  called  in  question 
or  doubted  by  a single  scientific  writer  for 
2,500  years,  or  since  its  origination  in  the 
time  of  Pythagoras. 

The  truth  is,  the  wave-theory — or,  as  it 
is  popularly  known,  the  undulatory  theory 
— of  sound  has  been  so  long  in  existence 
with  no  one  to  question  its  correctness,  that 
modern  physicists  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  accepting  it,  handed  down  from  genera- 
tion to  generation, with  all  its  unspeakable 
difficulties,  as  a kind  of  legacy  bequeathed 
from  scientists  of  the  past;  and,  with  an 
acquiescence  unparalleled  in  the  annals 
of  physical  investigations,  have  labored  to 
explain  its  inexplicable  contradictions  and 
reconcile  its  infinite  absurdities,  with  a 
patient  persistence  which  a love  of  science 
can  alone  inspire.  Hence  it  is  that  no 
physicist  has  had  the  hardihood,  if  he  had 
the  originality,  to  cut  loose  from  the 
ancient  landmarks  of  the  theory,  or  to 
venture  an  hypothesis  to  take  its  place. 
The  writer  of  these  chapters  is  a solitary 
— possibly  an  unfortunate — exception,  the 
result  of  whose  venture  the  following  pages 
will  disclose. 

I will  only  extend  these  introductory 
remarks  here  by  adding  that  I have  not 
ignored  the  important  fact  in  thus  attempt- 
ing to  revolutionize  the  theory  of  Sound, 
that  I have  to  meet  face  to  face  the  pow- 
erful intellectual  abilities  of  such  physicists 
as  Helmholtz,  Tyndall,  Kuntz,  Blacerna, 
Mayer,  and  a host  of  others,  either  one  of 
whom,  when  it  comes  to  the  investigation 
of  questions  relating  to  physical  science,  is 
sufficient  to  make  a cautious  writer  quail 
and  hesitate,  and  even  repudiate  the  de- 
liberately formed  convictions  of  his  own 
judgment.  This  was  the  actual  impression 
on  my  own  mind  for  many  months  before 
putting  pen  to  paper,  even  after  I had  be- 
come thoroughly  satisfied  in  reading,  ex- 
perimenting, and  investigating,  that  the 


wave-theory  though  ingenious  was  purely 
visionary,  having  not  a single  correctly 
understood  fact  of  science  on  which  to 
rest.  I have  at  last  thrown  off  my  natural 
timidity  and  hesitancy,  and,  though  the 
combat  may  be  mortal  on  my  side,  I shall 
not  have  proved  the  first  one  who  has 
immolated  himself  upon  the  altar  of  his 
scientific  convictions. 

While  discussing  the  question  of  light 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  and  examining 
the  modern  undulatory  theory  as -a  substi- 
tute for  Sir  Isaac  Newton’s  corpuscular 
theory,  I took  occasion  to  point  out  the 
fact,  that,  had  Newton  taken  advantage 
of  the  new  feature  of  this  hypothesis, 
namely,  that  light  itself,  as  a substantial 
corpuscular  emission,  was  radiated  from 
the  light-producing  body  in  pulses  or  lumi- 
nous discharges , he  need  never  have  been 
driven  from  his  ground  of  light  as  sub- 
stance, and  been  forced  to  admit  certain 
phenomena  which  could  only  be  explained 
by  wave-motion;  for,  according  to  this 
view,  now  for  the  first  time  publicly  pre- 
sented, that  light  is  generated  by  the  in- 
candescent tremor  of  the  luminous  body 
and  diffused  through  space  in  luminous 
pulses  or  discharges  which  synchronize  with 
such  tremors,  there  is  no  use  whatever  for 
a substantial  luminiferous  ether  (by  the 
way,  a pure  invention  gotten  up  to  meet 
this  very  case),  since  the  pulses  or  dis- 
charges of  light-corpuscles  themselves 
would  have  answered  the  same  purpose 
as  ether-waves,  and  would  have  thus  solved 
every  problem  which  could  have  been 
possibly  explained  by  the  latter  hy- 
pothesis. 

Sound  is  a parallel  phenomenon  every 
way  we  can  view  it,  as  it  is  well  known  to 
every  scientific  student  that  it  was  only 
the  universally  acknowledged  fact  that 
sound-phenomena  resulted  from  the  sup- 
posed undulatory  motion  of  the  air,  which 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


75 


led  philosophers  to  the  invention  of  this 
all-pervading  luminiferous  ether,  extend- 
ing, as  is  supposed,  to  the  very  outmost 
limits  of  telescopic  vision,  if  not  through- 
out all  space.  When  Professor  Young  first 
suggested  such  a. substance  as  ether,  whose 
undulations  might  explain  certain  phe- 
nomena resembling  those  of  sound,  which 
no  one  had  ever  suspected  to  be  other 
than  caused  by  air-waves,  it  did  not  occur 
to  this  learned  investigator  that  air-waves 
themselves,  as  the  means  of  sound-propa- 
gation, were  a pure  fallacy  of  science, 
without  one  fact,  or,  when  fully  analyzed, 
appearance  of  fact,  to  warrant  them, — as 
will  fully  appear  in  due  time. 

I am  well  aware  that  an  intimation  like 
this,  after  so  many  learned  treatises  on 
sound  as  the  result  of  wave-motion  have 
appeared  from  pens  like  those  of  Helm- 
holtz and  Tyndall,  will  naturally  awaken 
in  the  scientific  mind  a feeling  of  contempt 
for  its  author,  mingled  perhaps  with  com- 
miseration. Even  my  most  intimate  friends 
have  warned  me  to  desist  from  publishing 
these  chapters,  unless  I wish  to  make  my- 
self ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  the  scientific 
world,  and  be  set  down  as  a first-class  can- 
didate for  a lunatic  asylum.  But  as  I have 
counted  the  cost  and  am  not  at  all  con- 
vinced of  my  insanity,  I have,  of  course, 
declined  the  advice  so  gratuitously  ten- 
dered. 

Before  introducing  a single  argument 
against  the  hypothesis  that  sound  is  propa- 
gated by  means  of  atmospheric  undula- 
tions or  any  other  kind  of  wave-motion, 
I wish  to  clearly  state  the  difference  be- 
tween the  old  and  the  new  hypothesis  of 
sound-propagation,  and  to  name  some  of 
the  well-recognized  facts  of  these  phe- 
nomena, on  which  there  can  be  no  contro- 
versy or  difference  of  opinion,  as  the  basis 
of  all  future  argument.  I do  not  propose 
to  tear  down  the  wave-theory  without 


framing  an  hypothesis  to  take  its  place, 
and  one  which  will  serve  as  a basis  for  the 
solution  of  the  undeniable  problems  pre- 
sented in  sound-phenomena.  While  main- 
taining, as  I do,  that  the  wave-theory  is  a 
most  transparent  and  unmitigated  scien- 
tific fallacy,  I as  strongly  insist  that,  such 
fact  being  clearly  established,  there  is 
nothing  else  left  for  sound  to  be  but  sub- 
stantial emissions.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  a reflecting  mind  can  draw  any  other 
conclusion  than  corpuscular  emanations 
of  some  kind  of  substance,  however  atten- 
uated it  may  be,  if  first  of  all  the  wave- 
theory  breaks  down  hopelessly,  as  I shall 
attempt  to  show  it  must. 

Even  if  the  substance  constituting  these 
sonorous  pulses  were  conceded  to  be  as 
attenuated  as  the  material  atoms  compos- 
ing Professor  TyndeiWs  gelatinous  luminif- 
erous ether  which  forms  the  basis  of  light- 
waves, I should  still  maintain  that  such 
substantial  emanations  are  every  way  rea- 
sonable and  consistent  with  Nature’s  ana- 
logues, many  of  which  I will  take  occasion 
to  introduce  as  the  argument  advances, 
while  no  advocate  of  the  undulatory  theory 
of  light,  and  of  these  substantial  waves  of 
ether  moving  freely  among  the  molecules 
of  the  diamond,  can  reasonably  object  to 
substantial  discharges  of  sound,  when,  as 
I have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
light  itself  could  just  as  well  be  supposed 
to  radiate  in  the  form  of  substantial  waves 
or  pulses,  as  first  to  ignore  such  a substance 
entirely,  and  then  substitute  another  ma- 
terial (luminiferous  ether)  almost  infinitely 
more  difficult  to  accept.* 


* “ To  account  for  the  enormous  velocity  of  prop- 
agation in  the  case  of  light,  the  substance  which 
transmits  it  is  assumed  to  be  of  both  extreme  elasticity 
and  extreme  tenuity.  This  substance  is  called  the 
Luminiferous  Ether.  It  fills  all  space  ; it  surrounds 
the  atoms  of  bodies.  . . . The  molecules  of  luminous 
bodies  are  in  a state  of  vibration.  The  vibrations 


76 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


I admit  at  once,  in  thus  assuming  what 
must  now  be  unavoidable  in  my  hypoth- 
esis,— namely,  that  the  chirping  of  a cricket 
fills  the  surrounding  air  with  substantial 
emanations, — that  I invite,  at  first  sight, 
the  incredulity  if  not  the  ridicule  of  all 
scientific  thinkers;  but  while  this  hypoth- 
esis will  be  shown  to  be  entirely  consistent 
with  other  well-known  natural  phenomena 
all  around  us,  which  no  well-informed 
mind  can  doubt,  it  will  be  demonstrated 
that, according  to  the  universally  accepted 
wave-theory,  the  cricket  is  actually  made 
to  perform  a miracle  of  physical  power 
compared  to  which  the  crushing  of  a gran- 
ite rock  to  powder  by  the  drifting  against 
it  of  a thistle-pappus  would  be  as  nothing. 

I may  also  add,  in  this  connection,  that 
it  never  was  thought  of  being  urged  in  the 
arguments  with  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  who 
strongly  held  to  the  corpuscular  theory  of 
light,  that  there  was  any  possible  middle 
ground  between  that  view  and  the  undu- 
latory  hypothesis;  but  rather  it  was  tacitly 
conceded  that  if  one  was  disproved  the 
other  was  clearly  substantiated.  It  was 
never  intimated  by  any  opponent  of  New- 
ton’s hypothesis — not  even  by  the  great 
mathematician  Laplace  — that  if  ether- 
waves  were  absolutely  shown  to  be  falla- 
cious and  impossible,  some  other  hypoth- 
esis might  be  suggested  besides  substantial 
emanations.  It  seemed  to  be  conceded 
on  all  hands  that  if  wave-motion  fell  to 
the  ground,  the  fact  became  established 
that  light  as  substance  of  some  kind  must 
be  taken  for  granted. 

are  taken  up  by  the  ether  and  transmitted  through 
it  in  waves,’’  &c. 

“In  fact,  the  mechanical  properties  of  the  ether 
are  rather  those  of  a solid  than  of  an  air.” — “ The 
luminiferous  ether  has  definite  mechanical  proper- 
ties. It  is  almost  infinitely  more  attenuated  than 
any  known  gas,  but  its  properties  are  those  of  a 
solid  rather  than  those  of  a gas.  It  resembles  jelly 
/ather  than  air.” — Tyndall  on  “Light,”  pp.  57,60. 


So,  also,  stands  the  question  as  regards 
sound.  If  atmospheric  wave-motion  is 
ruled  out  by  fair  logic  and  incontrovertible 
facts,  there  is  no  middle  ground  which 
can  be  assumed  between  it  and  substan- 
tial emissions.  Professor  Helmholtz  lays 
down  the  principle  in  logic  and  science 
that  a proposition  is  fairly  sustained  by 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  supposable  as- 
sumptions. I shall  therefore  avail  myself 
of  this  logic  (since  something  must  cause 
the  sensation  we  term  sound),  and  insist 
that  if  I shall  clearly  succeed  in  demon- 
strating the  fallacy  of  wave-motion  as  the 
cause  of  sonorous  sensations,  then  the  cor- 
puscular theory  becomes  necessarily  estab- 
lished till  such  time  as  physicists  shall  dis- 
cover and  elucidate  some  more  plausible 
middle  ground  as  a solution  of  sound  phe- 
nomena. I doubt  not  the  scientific  reader 
will  readily  admit  the  fairness  and  logical 
necessity  of  the  position  here  assumed. 

What,  then,  is  the  real  difference  be- 
tween the  two  hypotheses,  one  or  the  other 
of  which  must  be  accepted? 

Sound  is  undoubtedly  generated  by  the 
vibratory  motion  of  whatever  instrument 
produces  it,  just  as  light  is  admitted  to 
have  its  origin  in  the  tremulous  motion  of 
the  incandescent  molecules  of  luminous 
bodies.  Sound  thus  produced  is  claimed 
in  this  hypothesis  to  be  a finely  attenuated 
substance,  which  is  radiated  from  the 
sound-producing  body  by  an  unknown  law 
of  diffusion,  just  as  the  radiant  atoms  of 
light,  heat,  magnetism,  electricity,  and  even 
odor,  are  sent  off  from  their  respective 
sources. 

Science,  as  yet,  has  given  us  no  light  on 
the  subject  of  radiation  or  conduction.  It 
even  can  not  explain  osmotic  action,  or 
why  liquids  of  different  densities  tend  to 
mix  or  project  their  particles  through  each 
other,  in  opposition  to  the  law  of  gravity; 
or  why  grains  of  odor  tend  to  shoot  through 


Ciiap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


77 


still  atmosphere  at  considerable  velocity, 
much  less  by  what  law  magnetic  atoms  dart 
c ft'  from  the  poles  of  a magnet  in  ceaseless 
streams,  or  what  motile  force  sends  elec- 
tric fluid  through  a wire  at  almost  incon- 
ceivable velocity.  . It  is  enough  for  us,  in 
the  present  investigation,  to  know  that 
such  laws  of  radiation  and  conduction  do 
exist,  and  that  each  of  these  incorporeal 
substances  named,  if  they  be  substances, 
such  as  Light,  Heat,  Magnetism,  Electri- 
city, Gravitation,  Odor,  and  Sound,  has 
its  own  peculiar  law  of  radiation  and  con- 
duction, suited  by  the  Allwise  Lawgiver 
to  the  use  which  each  of  these  imponder- 
able substances  is  intended  to  serve. 

• As  sound  is  generated  by  the  vibratory 
action  of  the  instrument  which  produces 
it,  and  consists  (as  I assume)  of  atomic 
emissions,  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with 
philosophy  and  reason  that  these  corpus- 
cular emissions  should  be  radiated  in 
sonorous  pulses  or  discharges , instead  of 
continuous  streams,  each  discharge  syn- 
chronizing with  the  vibratory  movement 
of  the  string  or  other  instrument  which 
generates  it,  exactly  as  I have  assumed 
light  to  be  emitted  from  stellar  bodies. 

The  distance  between  these  discharges 
as  they  pass  off,  or  the  interval  occurring 
between  their  transmissions,  determines 
the  pitch  of  the  sound.  If  the  vibratory 
oscillations  of  the  instrument  be  slow, 
thereby  causing  a low  pitch,  then  the  syn- 
chronous discharges  of  the  sonorous  sub- 
stance will  strike  the  tympanic  membrane 
of  the  distant  listener  exactly  the  same 
intervals  apart,  and  consequently  will  pro- 
duce the  same  pitch  of  tone  there.  But  if 
the  sound-producing  instrument  vibrates 
rapidly,  the  sonorous  discharges  must 
necessarily  pass  off  with  a corresponding 
rapidity,  and  reach  the  ear  with  a corre- 
spondingly higher  pitch  of  tone.  Such 
discharges  radiate  through  the  atmosphere 


at  ordinary  temperature — say  sixty  degrees 
Fahrenheit  — at  1120  feet  a second,  as 
proved  by  careful  observation. 

If  sound  consists  of  substantial  atoms, 
as  I propose  to  show  must  be  the  case  be- 
fore I conclude  this  treatise,  then  it  must 
travel  through  whatever  body  conducts  it 
— let  that  be  air,  water,  wood,  or  iron, — 
in  the  manner  here  described,  namely,  as 
sonorous  pulses  or  discharges , such  dis- 
charges and  vibrations  keeping  up  their 
perfect  synchronism  or  periodicity. 

The  current  theory  of  sound,  in  speak- 
ing of  these  sonorous  discharges,  calls 
them  “ air-waves,”  and  the  intervals  occur- 
ring between  them  “ wave-lengths ,”  which 
determine,  in  the  same  manner  as  I have 
described,  the  pitch  of  tone.  If  the  vibra- 
tory motions  of  the  instrument  be  slow, 
the  air-waves  supposed  to  be  “moulded” 
and  sent  off  by  such  vibrations  are  said 
to  be  long,  or  to  be  of  a considerable  dis- 
tance from  crest  to  crest  or  from  sinus 
to  sinus,  or,  to  use  the  technical  phrase, 
“from  condensation  to  condensation,  and 
from  rarefaction  to  rarefaction ,”  as  ex- 
pressed by  all  writers  on  the  subject.  If 
the  vibrations  of  the  string  or  other  sound- 
producing  body  be  rapid,  the  waves  will  be 
short  and  the  pitch  of  the  sound  corre- 
spondingly high.  The  undulatory  theory 
teaches  that  these  air-waves  are  moulded 
by  the  string  or  tuning-fork  into  “conden- 
sations and  rarefactions,”  and  sent  off  in 
this  form  to  the  ear,  however  distant  so 
the  tone  is  audible,  producing  the  sensa- 
tion of  sound  by  the  successive  dashing  of 
these  air-waves  against  the  tyjnpanic  mem- 
brane, thus  causing  the  drum-skin  of  the 
ear  to  oscillate  synchronously  to  such 
waves.  Hence,  that  these  air-waves, 
moulded  and  sent  off  by  the  vibrating 
string  or  fork,  must  travel  undistorted  the 
entire  distance  the  sound  is  heard,  it  matters 
not  what  coimteracting  currents,  waves, 


78 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


sounds,  or  atmospheric  disturbances  may 
cross  their  path  ! 

Perhaps  there  is  no  better  place  than 
right  here  to  make  a few  brief  citations 
from  the  highest  living  authorities  on  this 
subject,  in  order  that  the  real  position  of 
scientists  on  the  current  wave-theory  may 
not  be  misunderstood.  These  citations 
are  selected  because  they  concisely  em- 
body the  popular  notions  regarding  sound- 
waves, with  an  authority  which  is  looked 
up  to  as  standard  in  all  our  institutions  of 
learning.  I request  the  reader  to  carefully 
read  them;  and,  if  not  familiar  with  this 
branch  of  scientific  investigation,  to  study 
them,  as  a proper  comprehension  of  their 
teaching  will  save  time  in  prosecuting 
the  argument,  and  prevent  the  necessity 
for  frequently  recurring  to  this  list  of  pas- 
sages. All  my  quotations  from  Professor 
Tyndall’s  Lectures  on  Sound,  in  the  course 
of  this  argument,  will  be  made  from  the 
second  edition,  except  in  a few  instances 
from  the  third  edition,  which  will  be  indi- 
cated. This  occurs  for  the  reason  that 
most  of  the  arguments  were  prepared  be- 
fore the  third  edition  of  Lectures  on  Souna 
was  published.  Professor  Tyndall  remarks 
as  follows : — 

1.  — “With  regard  to  the  point  now  under  con- 
sideration, you  will,  I trust,  endeavor  to  form  a 
definite  image  of  a wave  of  sound.  You  ought  to 
see  mentally  the  air-particlcs  when  urged  outwards 
by  the  explosion  of  our  balloon  crowding  closely 
together;  but  immediately  behind  this  condensation 
you  ought  to  see  the  particles  separated  more  widely 
apart.  You  ought,  in  short,  to  be  able  to  seize  the 
conception  that  a sonorous  wave  consists  of  two 
portions,  in  the  one  of  which  the  air  is  more  dense 
and  in  the  other  of  which  it  is  less  dense  than  usual. 
A condensation  and  a rarefaction , then,  arc  the  two 
constituents  of  a wave  of  sound." 

2.  — “Fix  your  attention  upon  a particle  of  air 
as  the  sound-wave  passes  over  it;  it  is  urged  from 
its  position  of  rest  towards  a neighbor  particle,  first 
with  an  accelerated  motion  and  then  with  a retarded 
one.  The  force  which  first  urges  it  is  opposed  by 
the  elastic  force  of  the  air,  which  finally  stops  the 


particle,  and  causes  it  to  recoil.  . . . The  dis. 

lance  through  which  the  air-particle  moves  to  and 
fro,  when  the  sound-wave  passes  it,  is  called  the 
amplitude  of  the  vibration.  The  intensity  [loudness} 
of  the  sound  is  also  proportional  to  th a square  oj 
the  amplitude." 

3-  **  1 he  motion  of  the  sonorous  wave  must  not 
be  confounded  with  the  motion  of  the  particles 
which  at  any  moment  form  the  wave.  During  the 
passage  of  the  wave  every  particle  concerned  in  its 
transmission  makes  only  a small  excursion  to  and 
fro.  The  length  of  this  excursion  is  called  the 
amplitude  of  the  vibration.' 

4-  — “A  sonorous  wave  consists  of  two  parts,  in 

one  of  which  the  air  is  condensed,  and  in  the  other 
of  which  rarefied.  ...  In  the  condensed  portion 
of  a sonorous  wave  the  air  is  above,  in  the  rarefied 
portion  it  is  below  the  average  temperature.  . . . 

This  change  of  temperature  produced  by  the  passage 
of  the  sonorous  wave  itself  virtually  augments  the 
elasticity  of  the  air,  and  makes  the  velocity  of  sound 
about  one  sixth  greater  than  it  would  be  if  there 
were  no  change  of  temperature.  . . . When  I speak 
of  a sonorous  wave  I mean  a condensation  and  its 
associated  rarefaction.  . . . When  a body  capable 
of  emitting  a musical  sound— a tuning-fork,  for 
example — vibrates,  it  moulds  the  surrounding  air 
into  sonorous  waves,  each  of  which  consists  of  a 
condensation  and  a rarefaction." 

5.  — “We  have  already  learned  that  what  is  loud- 
ness in  our  sensations  is  outside  of  us  nothing  more 
than  width  of  swing  or  amplitude  of  the  vibrating 
air-particles.  ’ ' 

6.  — “Having  determined  the  rapidity  of  vibra- 
tion, the  length  of  the  corresponding  sonorous  wave 
is  found  with  the  utmost  facility.  Imagine  this 
tuning-fork  vibrating  in  free  air  [384  vibrations  to 
the  second].  At  the  end  of  a second  from  the  time 
it  commenced  its  vibrations,  the  foremost  wave 
'would  have  reached  a distance  of  logo  feet  in  air  at 
the  freezing  temperature.  In  the  air  of  this  room, 
which  has  a temperature  of  about  150  Cen.,  it 
would  reach  a distance  of  1120  feet  in  a second. 
In  this  distance,  therefore,  arc  embraced  384  sono- 
rous waves'.  Dividing,  therefore,  1120  by  384,  we 
find  the  length  of  each  wave  to  be  nearly  3 feet.  ” 

7.  — “ IIow  are  we  to  picture  to  ourselves  the 
condition  of  the  air  through  which  this  musical 
sound  is  passing?  Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of 
the  vibrating  fork  swiftly  advancing;  it  compresses 
the  air  immediately  in  front  of  it,  and  when  it  re- 
treats it  leaves  a partial  vacuum  behind,  the  pro- 
cess being  repeated  by  every  subsequent  advance 
and  retreat.  The  whole  function  of  the  tuning-fork 


Chat.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


79 


is  to  carve  the  air  into  these  condensations  and  rare- 
factions. and  they,  as  they  are  formed,  propagate 
themselves  in  succession  through  the  air.  A con- 
densation with  its  associated  rarefaction  constitutes, 
as  already  stated,  a sonorous  wave.  In  water  the 
length  of  a wave  is  measured  from  crest  to  crest; 
while  in  the  case  of  sound  the  wave-length  is  given 
by  the  distance  between  two  successive  condensations. 
In  fact,  the  condensation  of  a sound-wave  corre- 
sponds to  the  crest,  while  the  rarefaction  of  the 
sound-wave  corresponds  to  the  sinus  of  the  water- 
wave.” 

S. — “ Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a harp-string 
vibrating  to  and  fro,  it  advances,  and  causes  the 
particles  of  air  in  front  of  it  to  crowd  together,  thus 
producing  a condensation  of  the  air.  It  retreats, 
and  the  air-particles  behind  it  separate  more  widely, 
thus  producing  a rarefaction  of  the  air.  The  string 
again  advances,  and  produces  a condensation  as 
before;  it  again  retreats,  and  produces  a rarefaction. 
In  this  way  the  air  through  which  the  sound  of  the 
string  is  propagated  is  moulded  into  a regular  se- 
quence of  condensations  and  rarefactions,  which 
travel  with  a velocity  of  about  noo  feet  a second. 
The  length  of  the  wave  is  measured  from  the  centre 
of  one  condensation  to  the  centre  of  the  next  one.” 

g. — “We  must  devote  a moment’s  attention  in 
passing  to  the  word  ‘amplitude,’  here  employed. 
The  pitch  of  a note  depends  solely  on  the  number 
of  aerial  waves  which  strike  the  ear  in  a second. 
The  loudness  or  intensity  of  a note  depends  on  the 
distance  within  which  the  separate  atoms  of  the  air 
vibrate.  This  distance  is  called  the  amplitude  of 
the  vibration.” — Tyndall,  Lectures  on  Sound, 
pp.  5,  II,  44,  46,  48,  62,  69,  83. — Heat  as  a Mode  of 
Motion,  pp.  225,  372. 

I also  quote  from  Professor  Helmholtz : 

10. — “ Suppose  a stone  to  be  thrown  into  a piece 
of  calm  water.  Round  the  spot  struck  there  forms 
a little  ring  of  wave,  which,  advancing  equally  in 
all  directions,  expands  to  a constantly  increasing 
circle.  Corresponding  to  this  ring  of  waves  sound 
also  proceeds  in  the  air  from  the  excited  point,  and 
advances  in  all  directions  as  far  as  the  limits  of  the 
mass  of  air  extend.  The  process  in  the  air  is  essen- 
tially identical  with  that  on  the  surface  of  the 
water.” — Helmholtz,  Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  14. 

I have  numbered  the  foregoing  citations 
in  view  of  possible  reference  to  them  as 
the  argument  advances. 

With  these  passages  before  the  reader 
there  need  be  no  difficulty  in  grasping  the 


essential  features  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sound,  which,  in  fact,  up  to  the  present 
moment,  is  the  only  hypothesis  ever  ad- 
vanced, so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  learn, 
by  which  to  explain  these  well-known  phe- 
nomena. Other  passages  will  be  quoted, 
from  time  to  time,  as  special  questions 
come  up  for  discussion. 

Believing,  as  I do,  that  the  new  hypoth- 
esis of  sonorous  discharges  of  some  sort 
of  attenuated  substance  will  fully  and  sat- 
isfactorily explain  all  phenomena  observed 
in  sound,  even  better  than  they  can  be  ex- 
plained by  physical  and  mechanical  air- 
waves, I will  at  once  make  a practical  ap- 
plication of  the  corpuscular  theory  to  a 
few  problems  which  have  been  always 
looked  upon  as  conclusive  proof  of  the 
air-wave  hypothesis. 

The  first  and  one  of  the  most  prominent 
examples  of  this  kind  is  that  of  sympathetic 
vibration , or  the  surprising  fact  that  if  two 
strings  or  forks  are  tuned  to  perfect  unison 
or  in  such  a way  that  they  will  make  ex- 
actly the  same  number  of  normal  oscilla- 
tions in  a second,  and  if  one  of  them  is 
thrown  into  vibration,  its  unison  neighbor 
if  placed  near  enough  to  it  will  also  start 
into  vibratory  motion,  and  sound  audibly 
without  any  connection  whatever  with  the 
actuating  string  or  fork  except  the  inter- 
vening air. 

The  reason  assigned  for  this  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  current  theory,  is,  that  the 
air-waves  moulded  and  sent  off  from  the 
excited  string  or  fork,  striking  against  its 
unison  neighbor  in  synchronism  with  its 
own  normal  tendency  to  swing,  start  it 
gradually  into  oscillation,  very  feebly  at 
first,  but  each  succeeding  air-wave  dash- 
ing against  it  in  perfect  periodicity  to  its 
own  vibrations,  gives  it  a new  impetus  at 
every  blow,  till  finally  this  sympathetic 
motion  is  brought  to  its  maximum.  This 
phenomenon,  first  observed  by  Pythagoras 


8o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


over  twenty  five  hundred  years  ago,  was, 
perhaps, the  origin  of  the  atmospheric  wave- 
theory,  since  which  time  it  has  reigned  su- 
preme, never  having  been  called  in  ques- 
tion by  any  succeeding  investigator  of 
sound.  It  is,  therefore,  a venerable  and 
highly  respectable  theory  with  which  I 
have  undertaken  to  deal  in  this  discussion. 

Though  I shall  undertake  to  show  that 
the  above  explanation  can  not  be  the  true 
solution  of  this  sympathetic  problem,  and 
that  it  must  be,  therefore,  a clear  mistake 
based  on  superficial  observation,  yet,  before 
doing  so  I will  gradually  prepare  the  reader 
for  the  new  solution  of  this  singular  physi- 
cal effect,  that  the  two  explanations  may 
be  placed  in  juxtaposition  before  him. 

I assume  that  there  is  a veritable  sym- 
pathetic attraction  potentially  existing  in 
every  sound-producing  body  for  every 
other  sound-producing  body  which  has  or 
may  have  a unison  or  synchronous  vibra- 
tion. The  unison  condition  alone  develops 
this  sympathetic  attraction  into  practical 
operation.  As  the  analogue  of  this  there 
exists  potentially  in  every  piece  of  iron 
magnetic  attraction  for  every  other  iron 
body.  When  a piece  of  iron  is  converted 
or  timed  into  steel,  and  assumes  the  char- 
acter of  a magnet  through  the  influence 
of  electric  currents,  it  may  be  said  to  be 
in  unison  with  the  molecular  character  of 
other  iron  bodies,  causing  an  affinity  to 
co-exist  between  them.  Why  it  attracts 
another  mass  of  iron,  overcoming  its  in- 
ertia and  causing  it  to  change  positions 
when  made  to  approach  it,  science  does 
not  tell  us,  yet  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 
some  kind  of  substantial  currents  pass  off 
from  the  magnet  to  seize  hold  of  the  iron 
armature  or  the  corporeal  result  of  lifting 
it  could  not  occur,  according  to  all  known 
physical  laws,  since  it  would  be  an  actual 
physical  result  caused  by  nothing.  We 
simply  know,  also,  that  these  substantial 


currents  sent  out  from  the  magnet  do  not 
move  or  lift  the  iron  by  means  of  air-wav'-  ■; 
or  the  undulatory  motions  of  any  inter- 
vening substance  whatever,  as  they  will 
pass  through  platinum,  gold,  or  sheets  of 
water,  without  the  slightest  disturbance  of 
their  particles,  and  still  move  the  iron  be- 
yond them  by  some  intangible  cords  con- 
necting them.  We  know,  further,  that  this 
magnetic  substance,  whatever  it  is,  passing 
from  the  poles  of  the  solid  steel  magnet, 
will  not  act  in  the  slightest  degree  on  any 
other  body  except  iron,  which  alone  re- 
sponds to  it  sympathetically,  just  as  a 
sounding  string  has  no  sympathetic  attrac- 
tion for  any  other  body,  and  will  stir  no 
other  object,  however  delicately  balanced, 
unless  it  be  a sound-producing  body  tuned 
synchronously  to  its  own  vibratory  swing. 
There  is  nothing  more  mysterious,  there- 
fore, or  difficult  to  accept,  in  a string  send- 
ing off  sonorous  pulses  of  some  kind  of 
substantial  atoms  (which  may  sympatheti- 
cally impinge  upon  the  same  potential 
substance  in  its  unison  neighbor,  causing 
it  to  move  by  synchronously  acting  upon 
it  and  gradually  adding  to  its  momentum, 
the  same  as  air-waves  are  supposed  to 
effect  it)  than  there  is  in  believing  in  the 
almost  analogous  attraction  of  the  magnet, 
with  which  every  scientific  student  is  fa- 
miliar. Scientists  do  not  pretend  to  ex- 
plain why  magnetic  currents  will  move  a 
piece  of  iron  and  nothing  else ; neither  do 
I claim  to  know  why  the  substantial  pulses 
from  a string  will  pass  off  and  sympatheti- 
cally influence  a musical  body  which  is  in 
a certain  condition  and  will  move  nothing 
else.  We  simply  know  that  both  phenom- 
ena exist  in  Nature.  One  of  them — the 
magnet — no  physicist  pretends  to  explain ; 
while  the  other,  from  the  most  superficial 
misconception,  as  I will  now  show,  we  are 
told  is  easily  explicable  by  the  synchro- 
nous dashing  of  literal  air-waves  against 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


81 


it,  as  you  might  also  start  it  by  successive 
Mows  from  a stick  dealt  with  suitable  pe- 
riodicity. 

As  a proof  that  the  sympathetic  vibra- 
tion of  a unison  body  is  not  caused  by  the 
periodic  impulses  imparted  to  it  through 
air-waves  sent  off  from  the  actuating  string 
or  fork,  I refer  the  reader  to  the  unan- 
swerable fact  that  a body  may  vibrate  or 
oscillate  ever  so  nearly  to  another  body 
tuned  in  perfect  synchronism  with  its  own 
swing,  and  ever  so  rapidly,  but  so  long  as 
no  audible  tone  is  produced  by  these  vi- 
brations no  motion  whatever  will  be  com- 
municated to  the  unison  neighbor,  though 
it  necessarily  and  continuously  receives 
the  synchronous  air-waves  driven  against 
it  by  the  actuating  body.  I have  carefully 
tested  this  in  the  following  manner:  I ar- 
ranged two  pendulum  balls,  with  very  short 
rods  of  equal  length,  to  cause  rapid  swings 
as  closely  together  as  possible  without 
touching,  being  careful  that  their  supports 
had  no  immediate  connection  (except  the 
air)  by  which  any  impulse  might  be  com- 
municated from  the  moving  ball  to  the  one 
at  rest.  Though  their  swings  were  in  per- 
fect synchronism,  moving  with  twice  the  ag- 
gregate velocity  of  a tuning-fork' s prongs, 
and  although  they  were  so  near  together 
that  the  air-disturbances  caused  by  the 
moving  pendulum  must  necessarily  strike 
the  other  periodically,  or  as  nearly  so  as  it 
is  possible  for  air-waves  to  travel,  yet  no 
motion  whatever  was  communicated  to 
the  one  at  rest,  for  the  best  of  all  possible 
reasons — there  was  no  tone  produced. 

This  is  also  illustrated  in  the  case  of  a 
sonometer-string,  if  taken  from  its  sound- 
ing-board and  stretched  over  isolated 
pieces  of  rigid  iron ; though  it  will  vibrate 
when  plucked  just  the  same,  and  “carve” 
or  “mould”  the  air  into  waves,  as  Professor 
Tyndall  expresses  it,  just  to  the  same  ex- 
tent exactly  as  when  in  connection  with 


its  sounding-tray, yet  its  sound  can  scarcely 
be  heard  by  a person  standing  near  it,  for 
the  want  of  a resonant  body  to  augment 
its  tone  by  diffusion,  as  will  be  explained 
after  a little.  A string  in  this  condition 
will  not  start  a unison  body  into  sympa- 
thetic vibration  even  if  but  a few  inches 
distant,  and  then  only  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  intensity  of  its  sound,  and  not  at  all 
in  proportion  to  the  amplitude  of  the  air- 
waves “moulded,”  “carved,”  and  sent  off 
by  its  oscillations,  which  are  exactly  the 
same  whether  such  string  is  connected 
with  the  sounding-board  or  not.  If  the 
air-waves  are  really  moulded  and  sent  off 
by  the  harp-string,  with  “condensations 
and  rarefactions”  traveling  1120  feet  a 
second,  as  so  explicitly  taught  by  Profes- 
sor Tyndall  (see  extracts  7 and  8,  pp.  78, 
79),  and  if  these  air-waves  are  really  the 
cause  of  sympathetic  vibration  in  a distant 
unison  string  or  fork,  then  pray  tell  us  why 
the  sonometer-string  can  cause  no  response 
to  its  unison  neighbor  a foot  from  it, though 
it  “carves,”  “moulds,”  and  sends  off  the 
same  air-waves  it  does  when  placed  on  its 
sounding-board?  The  air-wave  hypothesis 
must  therefore  completely  break  down  as 
the  solution  of  sympathetic  vibration. 

Professor  Robert  Spice,  of  230  Bridge 
Street,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  the  foremost  ac- 
coustician  and  one  of  the  most  careful  and 
painstaking  investigators  of  sound  in  this 
country,  informs  me  that  he  has  made  tun- 
ing-forks which, when  mounted  on  accurate 
resonant  cases,  have  responded  to  each 
other  sympathetically  at  a distance  of  180 
feet  apart.  Such  forks,  disconnected  from 
their  resonant  cases  and  consequently  de- 
prived almost  entirely  of  sound, would  not 
cause  the  slightest  sympathetic  effect  upon 
each  other  if  held  but  an  inch  apart,  sim- 
ply for  the  want  of  effective  tone,  notwith- 
standing the  air-waves  “carved”  and 
“moulded”  by  the  prongs  of  the  fork  are 


82 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


exactly  the  same  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  Something  else,  then,  evidently, 
besides  air-waves  sent  off  from  an  oscil- 
lating instrument  is  required  to  account 
J for  sympathetic  vibration. 
i But  the  advocate  of  wave-motion  is  here 
ready  with  an  objection.  He  urges  that 
in  placing  the  fork  or  string  into  contact 
with  the  sounding-board  the  vibrations  of 
the  instrument  are  vastly  multiplied  by 
the  greater  surface  of  the  board,  producing 
thereby  a greater  effect  upon  the  air,  or, 
in  other  words,  sending  off  more  powerful 
air-waves  than  can  be  sent  by  the  fork  or 
string  alone,  and  that  these  supplementary 
air-waves,  caused  by  the  vibratory  motion 
of  the  sounding-board,  are  the  real  cause 
of  the  sympathetic  response  of  a unison 
instrument  at  such  a great  distance. 

This  view  of  the  case  at  first  sight  would 
seem  to  have  some  weight;  but  when  care- 
fully looked  into  it  will  be  found  to  be 
based  on  a misunderstanding  of  the  laws 
governing  resonance.  It  will  therefore  be 
necessary  to  devote  a few  pages  to  this 
somewhat  complex  question,  and  thus  try 
to  explain  the  true  function  of  sounding- 
boards,  resonant  cases,  &c.,  in  connection 
with  musical  instruments,  at  the  same  time 
correcting  a number  of  superficial  but  pal- 
pable errors  of  physicists. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  advocates  of 
the  wave-theory  of  sound  have  no  clear  con- 
ception of  the  phenomenon  of  resonance, 
— attributing  it,  as  they  do,  to  a simple  in- 
crease in  atmospheric  disturbance,  or  to 
an  augmentation  of  air-waves, — we  have 
only  to  note  their  flat  and  unavoidable 
contradictions  when  treating  on  different 
phases  of  their  theory.  The  reader  will 
be  made  fully  aware,  before  this  treatise 
is  concluded,  that  the  profoundest  and 
most  careful  investigators  of  sound-phe- 
nomena are  unavoidably  forced  to  contra- 
dict themselves  and  the  elementary  prin- 


ciples of  the  wave-theory  in  numerous 
ways,  simply  because  the  theory  itself  is 
intrinsically  erroneous,  and  based  on  a 
pure  misconception  of  natural  laws;  hence, 
in  dealing  with  different  aspects  of  the 
subject,  its  ablest  advocates  are  neces- 
sarily and  naturally  led  into  the  most  pre- 
posterous absurdities  and  laughable  in- 
congruities. 

In  explaining  “sonorous  waves”  to  his 
audience,  and  in  what  manner  they  are 
sent  off  from  a vibrating  string  through  the 
sounding-board  of  a sonometer,  Professor 
Tyndall  remarks: — 

“The  sonorous  waves  which  at  present  strike 
your  ears  do  not  proceed  immediately  from  the 
string.  The  amount  of  motion  which  so  thin  a 
body  imparts  to  the  air  is  too  small  to  be  sensible  at 
any  distance.  But  the  string  is  drawn  tightly  over 
the  two  bridges,  and  when  it  vibrates  its  tremors 
are  communicated  through  these  bridges  to  the  en- 
tire mass  of  the  box.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  87. 

He  next  experiments  with  a similar 
string  without  any  kind  of  a sounding- 
board,  it  being  merely  stretched  over  rigid 
pieces  of  iron,  and  remarks: — 

“ I now  pluck  the  string.  It  vibrates  vigorously, 
but  even  those  on  the  nearest  benches  do  not  hear  any 
sound.  The  agitation  which  it  imparts  to  the  air 
is  too  inconsiderable  to  affect  the  auditory  nerve  at 
any  distance.  . . . It  is  not  the  chords  of  a harp, 
or  a lute,  or  a piano,  or  a violin , that  throw  the  air 
into  sonorous  vibrations.  It  is  the  large  surface 
with  which  the  strings  are  associated." — Lectures 
on  Sound,  p.  88. 

Professor  Helmholtz,  admitted  to  be 
the  leading  physicist  on  sound  in  Europe, 
teaches  precisely  the  same  doctrine  in  re- 
gard to  the  resonance  of  a sounding-board, 
and  it  was  no  doubt  from  his  work  on  the 
Sensations  of  Tone  that  Professor  1 yndall 
caught  the  above  inspiration.  This  great 
German  authority  says,  in  speaking  of  the 
resonant  effects  of  sounding-boards: — 

“As  we  have  had  already  occasion  to  remark, 
vibrating  strings  do  not  directly  communicate  any 
sensible  portion  of  their  motion  to  the  air,  — Sensa- 
tions of  Tone , p.  137. 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


83 


Here,  then,  while  declaring  that  it  is 
not  the  air-waves  from  the  string  which 
we  hear,  since  a string  is  “so  thin  a body” 
that  its  waves  are  not  “ sensible  at  any  dis- 
tance,” Professor  Tyndall  forgets  his  ex- 
plicit argument,  quoted  on  page  79,  extract 
No.  8,  in  which  he  says: — 

“Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a harp-string 
[which  he  says  here  can  not  “throw  the  air  into 
sonorous  vibrations" 7]  vigorously  vibrating  to  and 
fro ; it  advances,  and  causes  the  particles  of  air 
in  front  of  it  to  crowd  together,  thus  producing  a 
condensation  of  the  air.  It  retreats,  and  the  air- 
particles  behind  it  separate  more  widely,  thus  pro- 
ducing a rarefaction  of  the  air.  ...  In  this  way 
[Mark  it,  “in  this  way,”  by  the  simple  motion  of 
the  harp-string,  without  a word  about  its  sounding- 
board  advancing  and  retreating !]  the  air  through 
which  the  sound  of  the  string  is  propagated  is 
moulded  into  a regular  sequence  of  condensations 
and  rarefactions  which  travel  with  a velocity  of 
about  1100  feet  a second.” 

Thus,  in  one  breath  he  teaches  that  the 
air-waves  are  due  entirely  to  the  motions 
of  the  string,  which  moulds  and  sends  them 
off  at  a velocity  of  1100  feet  a second; 
then,  in  the  next,  it  is  just  as  explicitly 
taught  that  “so  thin  a body”  as  a string 
can  not  produce  sound-waves  which  would 
be  “sensible  at  any  distance”;  and  finally, 
to  make  the  contradiction  as  flat  as  pos- 
sible, he  adds:  “It  is  not  the  chords  of  the 
harp  . . . that  throw  the  air  into  sonorous 
vibrations.  It  is  the  large  surface  with 
which  the  strings  are  associated”! 

A theory  based  on  a correct  under- 
standing of  the  physical  laws  surely  would 
not  thus  so  palpably  contradict  itself.  No 
better  proof  need  be  required  by  the  un- 
scientific reader  that  a theory  is  radically 
defective,  if  not  intrinsically  false,  than  to 
see  such  incongruous  statements  as  to  its 
fundamental  principles  when  being  pre- 
sented by  its  ablest  advocates.  If  its  va- 
rious phases  will  not  hold  together  and 
harmonize,  the  theory  must  be  false. 

But  is  this  transferrence  of  the  vibratory 


motion  of  the  string  to  the  sounding-board, 
thus  causing  it  to  act  on  the  atmosphere 
and  send  off  augmented  air-waves,  the 
true  solution  of  this  problem  of  resonance? 
By  a little  reflection  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  sounding-board  can  not,  by  any  possi- 
bility, aid  the  string  by  augmenting  its 
sound,  if  such  augmentation  depends  on 
air-waves  generated  by  the  motions  of  the 
board,  and  for  reasons  which  I will  now 
try  to  show  are  clearly  unanswerable. 

In  the  first  place,  the  pitch  of  a tone,  as 
every  one  admits,  depends  on  the  number 
of  vibrations  per  second  of  the  sounding 
body.  In  the  second  place,  the  tone  of  a 
string  never  changes  its  pitch  in  being 
transferred  to  and  augmented  by  the 
sounding-board;  and  though  the  board 
necessarily  receives  a tremor  from  the  vi- 
brating string  bearing  against  it,  such 
tremor  can  only  be  regarded  as  incidental, 
or  as  the  effect  of  the  motion  which  produces 
the  tone , and  not  such  motion  itself.  It  is 
this  fundamental  and  manifest  error  of 
supposing  an  incidental  or  fortuitous  effect 
of  sound  to  be  actually  the  cause  of  the 
tone  which  has  done  more  than  anything 
else  to  keep  the  wave-theory  so  long  in 
existence. 

As  the  sounding-board  of  an  instrument 
often  produces  a hundred-fold  augmenta- 
tion of  tone  compared  to  that  of  the  naked 
string,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  this  vast 
increase  of  sound  can  not  be  the  result  of 
corresponding  increase  of  vibratory  mo- 
tion and  of  air-waves  sent  off,  as  the  wave- 
theory  unavoidably  teaches,  since  this 
would  necessarily  make  the  sounding- 
board  the  controlling  mechanism  in  the 
production  of  tone;  and  consequently,  in- 
stead of  playing  a secondary  part  to  the 
string,  which  has  but  a hundredth  part  the 
vibratory  effect  on  the  air,  the  board  should 
at  once  take  possession  of  the  sound,  and 
change  its  pitch  to  its  own  vibratory  rate ! 


84 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  if  resonance, 
producing  a hundred-fold  augmentation 
of  tone,  is  caused  by  the  vibration  of  the 
sounding-board  and  by  the  air-waves  sent 
off  from  it,  that  its  normal  vibratory  oscil- 
lation would  be  under  the  control  of  the 
string’s  trifling  vibration,  which,  unassisted, 
can  not  make  a hundredth  part  of  the 
sound?  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  superior 
mass,  surface,  and  power  of  the  board 
would  assert  their  right  to  be  heard,  and 
instantly  change  the  pitch  of  the  tone 
from  the  string’s  normal  rate  to  that  of 
the  vibrating  body  whose  waves  actually 
produce  a hundred-fold  more  tone?  If  the 
wave-theory  be  correct,  that  resonance  is 
really  caused  by  the  vibratory  motion  of 
the  board,  then  evidently  each  string  as 
soon  as  sounded  should  lose  its  own  iden- 
tity and  be  forced  to  conform  to  the  nor- 
mal pitch  of  the  sounding-board.  This 
wave-theory  of  resonance  involves  the 
startling  inconsistency  of  a vibrating  body, 
having  a hundred-fold  more  power  over 
the  air,  being  coerced  out  of  its  own  nor- 
mal oscillation  into  an  abnormal  and  ob- 
noxious swing  which  causes  a hundred-fold 
the  amount  of  tone,  while  the  string  itself, 
not  a thousandth  part  as  large  in  area,  re- 
tains its  perfect  pitch,  mastering  and  anni- 
hilating that  of  its  powerful  coadjutor! 
As  an  effect  so  vast  could  not,  by  any  pos- 
sibility, be  produced  by  such  an  inade- 
quate cause,  it  follows  that  the  resonance 
produced  by  a sounding-board  must  re- 
ceive some  other  explanation  than  that 
given  by  the  wave-theory. 

The  well-known  comical  illustration  of 
the  wagging  of  a dog’s  tail,  though  some- 
what ludicrous,  is  so  completely  applicable 
to  this  case,  and  every  way  so  mechanical 
and  appropriate,  that  I am  obliged  to  refer 
to  it.  The  inquiry  why  a dog  wags  his 
tail  was  philosophically  answered,  because 
the  tail  was  the  smallest,  or  otherwise  the 


tail  would  wag  the  dog!  The  theory  of 
resonance,  as  taught  by  Professor  Tyndall, 
inverts  this  sensible  answer,  and  makes 
the  diminutive  “tail”  of  a string  wag  the 
enormous  “dog”  of  a sounding-board,  at 
the  same  time  giving  it  a hundred-fold 
more  wagging  motion  than  it  has  to  com- 
municate! Surely  an  explanation  so  pal- 
pably absurd  can  not  be  the  correct  one. 

1 hat  the  tremor  of  the  sounding-board, 
or  the  movement  it  may  impart  to  the  air, 
is  only  incidental,  or  a fortuitous  effect  of 
the  actual  cause  of  the  sound  itself  in  the 
motion  of  the  string,  just  as  the  recoil  of 
a cannon  or  the  disturbance  of  the  sur- 
rounding atmosphere  thus  produced  at  its 
discharge,  is  but  incidental  to  the  projec- 
tile’s movement,  and  no  part,  necessarily, 
of  such  propulsion,  will  be  made  clear  in 
a moment  to  the  most  unscientific  reader. 

The  sounding-board  of  the  piano,  for 
example,  has  eighty-five  separate  sets  of 
strings  bearing  against  its  surface,  each  of 
which  has  a different  rate  of  vibration  of 
its  own,  and  consequently  a separate  pitch 
of  tone.  Now,  while  the  sounding-board 
does  really  augment  by  resonance  the 
sound  of  each  of  these  eighty-five  sets  of 
strings,  it  has,  as  just  intimated,  but  one 
normal  rate  of  vibration  of  its  own,  and 
if  bowed  across  its  edge  will  produce  but 
one  pitch  of  tone — a heavy,  low,  and  dull 
sound.  Yet,  if  the  eighty-five  sets  of  strings, 
with  eighty-five  distinct  rates  of  vibration 
and  pitches  of  tone,  were  all  to  be  sounded 
at  one  time,  the  board  would  nevertheless 
resound  to  every  string  at  the  same  instant, 
while  not  the  slightest  change  would  occur 
in  the  pitch  of  tone  or  rate  of  vibration  in 
either  of  the  sets  of  strings!  The  wave- 
theory,  in  attempting  a solution  of  reso- 
nance, in  the  case  of  a pianoforte,  is  thus 
forced  to  assume  that  a single  board,  with 
but  one  normal  rate  of  vibration,  is  capable 
of  sending  off  from  its  surface  no  less  than 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


85 


eighty-five  separate  systems  of  air-waves 
(as  the  real  and  only  cause  of  the  tones 
we  hear,  according  to  Professor  Tyndall), 
each  system  having  a different  rate  of  vi- 
bratory motion,  and  oscillating  with  a 
different  amplitude  of  swing  at  the  same 
instant  of  time,  and  all  save  one  forced  or 
coerced  away  from  the  normal  oscillation 
of  the  board,  since  the  distinct  note  of  any 
one  set  of  strings  can  be  sorted  out  from 
the  entire  mass  of  tone,  even  when  all  the 
strings  are  sounded  together,  if  the  ear  is 
aided  by  a suitable  resonator  tuned  accu- 
rately to  that  particular  note ! 

The  mere  presentation  of  such  a physi- 
cal and  mechanical  impossibility  (since 
aerial  waves  are  nothing  but  the  result  of 
physical  and  mechanical  forces  and  opera- 
tions) ought  to  be  sufficient  to  cause  any 
properly  trained,  analytical  mind,  to  at 
once  reject  a theory  the  truth  of  which 
has  to  depend  on  such  a result. 

No  well-informed  advocate  of  the  cur- 
rent hypothesis  of  sound  will  pretend  to 
call  in  question  the  truth  of  the  position 
here  stated,  namely,  that  if  the  wave-theory 
be  true,  it  must  be  possible  for  the  surface 
of  a single  sounding-board  to  be  thrown 
at  one  time  into  eighty-five  distinct  sys- 
tems of  undulations,  all  different  in  ampli- 
tude and  rates  of  oscillatory  motion,  each 
rate  of  vibration  sending  off  a system  of 
air-waves  corresponding  in  width  of  swing 
and  periodic  time  to  that  particular  undu- 
lation of  the  board,  each  causing  a counter 
condensation  and  conflicting  direction  to 
the  same  air-particles,  the  whole  eighty-five 
systems  of  waves  occupying  the  same  air 
of  the  same  room  at  the  same  time,  and 
each  wave  passing  through  it  undistorted 
and  independently  of  the  other  eighty-four 
systems,  the  same  as  if  they  were  not  at 
that  very  instant  permeating  the  atmos- 
phere ! 

Now,  if  I am  able  to  show  from  the 


highest  living  authority  on  sound,  as  well 
as  on  all  questions  involving  the  operations 
of  the  physical  laws,  that  these  eighty-five 
different  systems  of  vibratory  motions  and 
resultant  air-waves,  with  their  conflicting 
amplitudes,  periodic  rates,  condensations 
and  rarefactions  of  the  air,  or  even  two 
such  systems,  are  wholly  impossible  and 
out  of  the  question  in  the  same  atmosphere 
at  the  same  time,  must  not  the  theory 
based  on  such  a mechanical  result  be 
utterly  shattered?  I have  at  hand,  fortu- 
nately, just  such  a conclusive  and  sweep- 
ing overthrow  of  the  very  foundation  of 
the  wave-theory  from  the  pen  of  no  less 
an  authority  than  Professor  Helmholtz 
himself,  which  the  reader,  if  he  be  a be- 
liever in  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  is  re- 
quested particularly  to  note  : — 

“It  is  evident  that  at  each  point  in  the  mass  of 
air,  at  each  instant  of  time , there  can  be  only  one 
single  degree  of  condensation , and  that  the  particles 
of  air  can  be  moving  -with  only  one  single  determi- 
nate kind  of  motion,  having  only  one  single  determi- 
nate amount  of  velocity , and  passing  in  only  one 
single  determinate  direction — Sensations  of  Tone, 

p.  40. 

And  immediately  after  this,  as  if  the 
foregoing  language  was  not  sufficiently 
strong  to  annihilate  the  wave-theory,  the 
Professor  adds : — 

“It  is  true  that  two  different  degrees  of  density 
produced  by  two  different  systems  of  waves  can  not 
co-exist  in  the  same  place  at  the  same  time.” — Sensa- 
tions of  Tone , p.  42. 

How,  then,  could  eighty-five  distinct 
and  separate  systems  of  undulations  co- 
exist in  the  same  air  and  pass  off  from  the 
same  surface  of  the  sounding-board  at  the 
same  instant  of  time,  each  system  of  waves 
of  a different  “condensation”  or  “density,” 
as  would  be  the  case  if  there  was  the 
slightest  difference  in  the  intensity  of  the 
tones,  since  each  wave  produces  a conden- 
sation of  the  air  exactly  in  proportion  to 
its  loudness  or  the  “width  of  swing”  of  its 
air-particles? 


86 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


If  there  is  any  meaning  in  words,  my 
position  is  fully  sustained  ; for,  if  Professor 
Helmholtz  had  aimed  to  crush  out  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  at  a single  blow  and 
show  its  utter  untenability,  and  particu- 
larly the  idea  of  resonance  consisting  in 
augmented  air-waves,  he  could  not  more 
effectually  have  accomplished  his  work 
than  he  has  done  in  the  above  unneces- 
sarily emphatic  negation  of  the  entire  hy- 
pothesis. 

To  strengthen  this  view,  that  the  tremor 
of  the  sounding-board  and  its  resultant 
air-waves  are  but  incidental,  and  not  the 
cause  of  the  great  augmentation  of  the 
tone  heard,  it  is  a fact,  proved  by  the  beau- 
tiful experiment  of  Professor  Wheatstone, 
that  all  the  tones  of  the  piano  can  be 
condensed  and  conducted  longitudinally 
through  a long  slender  rod,  by  letting  one 
end  of  it  rest  on  the  sounding-board  and 
placing  a violin  against  the  other;  and  I 
can  not  resist  the  temptation  of  here  quot- 
ing bodily  the  beautiful  description  of  this 
experiment  given  by  Professor  Tyndall  in 
one  of  his  lectures  : — 

“We  are  now  prepared  to  appreciate  an  ex- 
tremely beautiful  experiment,  for  which  we  are  in- 
debted to  Professor  Wheatstone,  and  which  I am 
now  able  to  make  before  you.  In  a room  under- 
neath this,  and  separated  from  it  by  two  floors,  is 
a piano.  Through  the  two  floors  passes  a tin  tube 
2j  inches  in  diameter,  and  along  the  axis  of  this 
tube  passes  a rod  of  deal,  the  end  of  which  emerges 
from  the  floor  in  front  of  the  lecture-table.  The 
rod  is  clasped  by  india-rubber  bands,  which  entirely 
close  the  tin  tube.  The  lower  end  of  the  rod  rests 
upon  the  sound-board  of  the  piano,  its  upper  end 
being  exposed  before  you.  An  artist  is  at  this 
moment  engaged  at  the  instrument,  but  you  hear 
no  sound.  I place  this  violin  upon  the  end  of  the 
rod;  the  violin  becomes  instantly  musical, — not, 
however,  with  the  vibrations  of  its  own  strings,  but 
with  those  of  the  piano.  I remove  the  violin,  the 
sound  ceases;  I put  in  its  place  a guitar,  and  the 
sound  revives.  For  the  violin  and  guitar  I substi- 
tute this  plain  wooden  tray;  it  is  also  rendered 
musical.  Here,  finally,  is  a harp,  against  the 
sound-board  of  which  I cause  the  end  of  the 


deal  rod  to  press ; every  note  of  the  piano  is  repro- 
duced before  you.  I lift  the  harp  so  as  to  break  its 
connection  with  the  piano,  the  sound  vanishes; 
but  the  moment  I cause  the  sound-board  to  press 
upon  the  rod,  the  music  is  restored.  The  sound 
of  the  piano  so  far  resembles  that  of  the  harp  that 
it  is  hard  to  resist  the  impression  that  the  music 
you  hear  is  that  of  the  latter  instrument.  An  un- 
educated person  might  well  believe  that  witchcraft 
is  concerned  in  the  production  of  this  music. 

“What  a curious  transference  of  action  is  here 
presented  to  the  mind!  At  the  command  of  the 
musician’s  will  his  fingers  strike  the  keys ; the  ham- 
mers strike  the  strings,  by  which  the  rude  mechan- 
ical shock  is  shivered  into  tremors.  The  vibrations 
are  communicated  to  the  sound-board  of  the  piano. 
Upon  that  board  rests  the  end  of  the  deal  rod, 
thinned  off  to  a sharp  edge  to  make  it  fit  more 
easily  between  the  wires.  Through  this  edge,  and 
afterwards  along  the  rod,  are  poured  with  unfailing 
precision  the  entangled  pulsations  produced  by  the 
shocks  of  those  ten  agile  fingers.  To  the  sound- 
board of  the  harp  before  you  the  rod  faithfully  de- 
livers up  the  vibrations  of  which  it  is  the  vehicle. 
This  second  sound-board  transfers  the  motion  to 
the  air,  carving  and  chasing  it  into  forms  so  tran- 
scendently  complicated  that  confusion  alone  could 
be  anticipated  from  the  shock  and  jostle  of  the  sono- 
rous waves.  But  the  marvellous  human  ear  accepts 
every  feature  of  the  motion  ; and  all  the  strife  and 
struggle  and  confusion  melt  finally  into  music  upon 
the  brain.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  80. 

Had  the  wave-theory  of  sound  not  been 
assailed  as  utterly  inadequate  to  account 
for  this  wonderful  transferrence  of  the 
complicated  sounds  of  the  piano  through 
the  length  of  this  rod  by  means  of  corre- 
sponding wave-motions,  having  each  a 
separate  rate,  of  vibration  and  width  of 
swing,  we  might  still  go  on  believing  in 
such  “witchcraft”;  but  the  evidence  a 
moment  since  quoted  from  Professor 
Helmholtz,  proving  that  no  two  systems 
of  waves — of  different  densities, of  different 
rates  of  motion,  and  of  different  ampli- 
tudes,— can  co-exist  in  the  same  place  at 
the  same  time,  is  a sufficient  proof  that 
the  incidental  up  and  down  tremor  of  this 
deal  rod  resting  against  the  sounding- 
board  is  not  and  can  not  be  the  true  cause 


Chat.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


87 


of  communicating  so  many  complex  mu- 
sical tones  to  the  violin  at  the  same  in- 
stant. Besides,  the  explanation  of  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  is  completely  overthrown 
by  substituting  an  iron  rod  for  the  one  of 
deal.  Such  a rod  receives  the  same  tremor 
precisely  from  the  sounding-board  of  the 
piano,  and  communicates  it  just  as  effect- 
ively to  the  violin, — as  it  surely  ought  to 
do,  being  a fourfold  swifter  conductor  of 
sound  than  wood.  But  no  music  whatever 
is  heard  by  the  audience.  If  the  vibratory 
motion  of  the  sounding-board,  thus  trans- 
ferred longitudinally  through  a rod  to  the 
violin,  is  the  true  cause  of  this  resonance, 
then  manifestly  the  music  should  be  the 
same  through  the  iron  rod  as  through  the 
deal,  since  the  vibratory  motion  is  essen- 
tially the  same  in  both  cases. 

But  in  dealing  with  this  question  of  reso- 
nance, which  really  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  wave-theory,  and  which,  if  it  can 
be  satisfactorily  explained  without  air- 
waves, overthrows  the  entire  hypothesis, 
I am  not  left  to  simple  argumentation 
based  upon  facts,  however  strongly  they 
may  bear  against  the  current  explanation. 
I am  not  even  obliged  to  rest  on  the  ex- 
plicit admission  of  Professor  Helmholtz 
just  quoted,  or  the  self-contradictory  state- 
ments of  Professor  Tyndall,  as  shown  at 
the  commencement  of  this  argument  on 
resonance,  in  which  he  assures  us  that  the 
harp-string  both  makes  the  tone  and  don’t 
make  it ! I have  at  hand  a simple  and 
unquestionable  demonstration,  in  the  form 
of  a single  experiment  within  the  reach 
of  any  one  desiring  to  test  it,  which  shows 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a doubt  that  the 
resonance  of  a sounding-board  has  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  its  incidental 
tremor  or  the  air-waves  thus  produced, 
which,  if  it  turns  out  as  I now  state  it, 
alone  breaks  down  the  wave-theory. 

This  experiment  consists  in  holding  the 


stem  of  a large  tuning-fork  in  contact 
with  a dry  pine  chip  of  about  the  same 
bulk,  which  will  cause  a resonant  aug- 
mentation of  the  tone  of  the  fork  at  least 
twofold.  Now,  while  the  prongs  of  the 
fork  can  be  plainly  seen  to  oscillate  a six- 
teenth of  an  inch,  sending  off  correspond- 
ing air-waves,  the  chip  is  destitute  of  all 
visible  vibration,  and  consequently  can 
send  off  no  appreciable  air-waves  as  com- 
pared to  those  generated  by  the  fork, 
notwithstanding  it  doubles  the  volume  of 
sound  by  resonance!  Professor  Tyndall 
says  the  air-waves  moulded  and  sent  off 
from  the  fork  do  not  cause  the  sound  we 
hear,  but  it  is  caused  by  the  waves  gener- 
ated by  the  large  surface  of  the  sounding- 
board  against  which  the  fork  is  held! 
Will  the  Professor  tell  us  how  it  is  when 
the  surface  of  the  board  is  no  larger  than 
that  of  the  fork,  while  the  sound  is 
doubled,  with  not  over  one-fifth  the  vibra- 
tory motion?  For  it  is  perfectly  manifest 
that  the  chip  against  which  the  stem  of  the 
fork  is  held  can  only  receive  a vibratory 
motion  equal  to  the  up  and  down  motion 
of  the  stem,  which  can  be  but  a very  small 
fraction  of  that  of  the  prongs  laterally; 
and  consequently,  if  air-waves  be  the  se- 
cret of  sound-production,  the  augmenta- 
tion by  the  motion  of  the  pine  chip  should 
not  be  appreciable. 

Can  these  advocates  of  the  wave-theory, 
who  draw  sage  conclusions  on  profound 
scientific  questions  from  a few  superficial 
observations,  tell  us  how  this  pine  chip, 
with  not  over  one  fifth  the  oscillatory 
motion  of  the  fork’s  prongs,  can  produce 
a twofold  augmentation  of  the  sound  by 
the  generation  and  propagation  of  air- 
waves, while  the  fork’s  five  or  ten  fold 
oscillation,  with  a five  or  ten  fold  aerial 
disturbance,  can  not  be  heard  “at  any  dis- 
tance,” as  Professor  Tyndall  himself  as- 
sures us? 


88 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


As  in  the  case  of  the  sounding-board  of 
the  piano,  there  is  unquestionably  an  inci- 
dental tremor  communicated  to  the  chip 
by  the  movement  of  the  fork,  which  can 
be  felt  by  the  hand,  though  too  infinitesi- 
mal to  be  seen.  I stated  on  page  83  that 
this  tremor  of  the  sounding-board  was 
only  incidental , as  the  result  of  the  motion 
which  produced  the  tone , and  not  its  cause. 
I will  now  prove  it  so  clearly  that  a child 
can  see  it.  If  the  tremor  of  the  chip  really 
is  the  cause  which  produces  the  augmenta- 
tion of  tone  by  moulding  and  carving  the 
air  into  sonorous  waves,  then  any  other 
body  of  the  same  size,  substituted  for  the 
chip,  which  necessarily  must  receive  ex- 
actly the  same  tremor  when  in  contact 
with  the  stem  of  the  tuning-fork,  would 
necessarily  produce  the  same  augmenta- 
tion of  tone,  as  just  shown  by  substituting 
an  iron  for  a deal  rod  in  the  Wheatstone 
experiment,  because  it  would  necessarily 
generate  and  send  off  the  same  amplitude 
and  number  of  air-waves.  So  far  from 
this  being  the  fact,  if  we  hold  a piece  of 
iron  of  the  size  of  the  chip  against  the 
stem  of  the  fork,  not  the  slightest  increase 
of  tone  occurs,  though  the  iron  is  felt  to 
tremble  exactly  the  same  as  the  chip,  even 
more  so,  being  more  firm  and  elastic. 
Here,  then,  we  have  all  the  vibration  in 
the  piece  of  iron  that  we  had  in  the  chip, 
and  consequently  all  the  additional  air- 
waves sent  off  without  a particle  of  aug- 
mented sound!  To  say  that  this  utterly 
shatters  the  wave-hypothesis  and  Profes- 
sor Tyndall’s  explanation  of  a sounding- 
board’s  resonance,  is  to  say  what  the  com- 
mon sense  of  every  reader  has  already 
admitted. 

We  can  go  even  further  in  regard  to  the 
tremulous  motion  of  the  chip,  or  its  iron 
substitute,  caused  by  the  up  and  down 
motion  of  the  stem  of  the  fork  while  the 
prongs  are  vibrating  laterally.  By  means 


of  a very  delicate  calculation  and  experi- 
ment made  by  Professor  Robert  Spice,  as 
explained  in  a paper  published  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Science  for  Decem- 
ber, 1876,  the  vibration  of  the  stem  of  the 
fork  vertically  in  proportion  to  that  of  its 
prongs  laterally  is  clearly  stated.  The 
Professor  found,  by  careful  examination 
and  measurement,  to  which  he  has  called 
my  attention,  that  a fork  whose  prongs 
oscillate  a sixteenth  of  an  inch  communi- 
cates an  up  and  down  synchronous  move- 
ment to  its  stem  of  one  eightieth  of  an  inch, 
or  exactly  one  fifth  of  its  lateral  oscilla- 
tion. Thus,  in  another  and  unexpected 
way,  and  by  impartial  scientific  testimony, 
we  demonstrate  the  fallacy  of  the  air-wave 
explanation  of  resonance ; for,  while  the 
fork’s  prongs  oscillating  a sixteenth  of  an 
inch  can  not  be  heard  “at  any  distance,” 
as  Professor  Tyndall  says,  though  they 
necessarily  produce  considerable  atmos- 
pheric disturbance  in  their  immediate 
vicinity, yet  the  stem  moving  up  and  down 
but  one  eightieth  of  an  inch,  doubles  the 
sound  acting  on  a chip  no  larger  than  the 
fork,  while  the  iron  substitute  having  the 
same  motion  precisely  and  generating  the 
same  air-waves  at  the  same  rate  per  sec- 
ond and  of  the  same  amplitude,  does  not 
add  an  iota  to  the  normal  sonorous  effect 
of  the  naked  fork ! 

Is  it  not,  then,  overwhelmingly  estab- 
lished, from  these  several  considerations, 
that  the  advocates  of  the  wave-theory  are 
entirely  mistaken  as  to  the  cause  of  reso- 
nance in  a sounding-board?  If  they  are 
thus  mistaken,  then,  evidently,  the  wave- 
theory  itself  is  left  without  a foundation 
on  which  to  rest ; for,  if  resonance  can 
occur  without  the  generation  of  corre- 
sponding air-waves,  as  we  here  see  it  can, 
so  can  any  other  tone  ever  produced ! 

But  now  we  come  to  the  important  ques- 
tion, if  the  resonance  of  a sounding-board 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


»9 


by  which  the  tone  of  a string  is  augmented 
ten,  twenty,  or  an  hundred-fold,  be  not 
caused  by  its  incidental  tremor  or  by  air- 
waves sent  off,  as  we  see  it  is  not  and  can 
*'  not  be,  then  is  there  any  probable  or  rea- 
sonable solution. of  this  phenomenon?  I 
answer,  there  is;  and  I will  now  try  to 
make  the  reader  understand  it. 

Resonance  is  of  two  kinds.  One  kind 
consists  in  the  radiation  or  diffusion  of 
tone  from  a body  such  as  a piano  sound- 
ing-board, where  effectiveness  depends  on 
two  principal  conditions,  namely,  the  mol- 
ecular structure  of  the  body  itself  and  the 
extent  of  its  surface,  including  also  its 
form,  partly,  and  its  manner  of  support; 
while  the  other  kind  of  resonance  consists 
in  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  a column 
of  air  tuned  to  perfect  synchronism  with 
the  sounding  body  which  excites  it  into 
action. 

In  the  first-named  variety  of  resonance 
are  included  all  sounding-boards,  such  as 
those  of  pianos,  harps,  violins,  sonometers, 
guitars,  &c.  In  the  second  belong  wind- 
instruments  of  all  kinds,  organ-pipes, 
flutes,  horns,  See.;  for  the  agitation  of  the 
air  at  the  mouths  or  debouchures  of  these 
instruments,  even  when  caused  by  the  lips 
or  by  reed-motion,  becomes  the  sound- 
generator,  while  the  air  in  the  horn  or 
resonant  pipe-chamber  is  made  to  express 
and  augment  the  tone  by  its  own  resonant 
or  sympathetic  vibration. 

To  this  class,  also,  belong  resonant  cases 
used  for  mounting  tuning-forks, whose  air- 
chambers,  to  be  effective,  should  be  of 
such  a depth  and  capacity  as  to  give  forth 
its  loudest  resonance  when  the  tuning-fork 
intended  for  it  is  sounded  over  its  open 
mouth. 

Advocates  of  the  wave-theory,  including 
Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz, assume 
and  teach  that  the  loudest  resonant  depth 
of  such  a case,  in  feet  and  inches,  is  ex- 


actly and  invariably  one  quarter  of  a wave- 
length of  the  sound  thus  most  loudly  aug- 
mented. If  this  were  so,  it  would  be  a 
remarkable  coincidence,  and  go  strongly 
to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  wave-theory; 
and  it  is  a real  pity  to  take  from  the  hy- 
pothesis what  seems  to  be  absolutely  its 
only  collateral  support,  which  will  be  done 
most  effectually  in  the  following  chapter, 
when  we  come  to  the  review  of  Professor 
Tyndall’s  famed  lectures  on  sound. 

Professor  Spice,  as  before  intimated,  has 
constructed  two  unison  forks,  and  mounted 
them  on  accurate  resonant  cases  180  feet 
apart,  and  caused  one  of  them  to  speak 
sensibly  by  exciting  the  other  with  a violin- 
bow.  How  is  this  result  effected? — and 
by  what  philosophical  or  physical  law  is 
corporeal  motion  generated  in  the  distant 
fork  by  sounding  its  unison  so  far  from  it? 
The  wave-theory  has  no  practical  solution 
to  offer  (being  a purely  physical  and  me- 
chanical hypothesis,  depending  on  the  mo- 
mentum of  corporeal  air-waves,  with  all 
their  inertia  and  friction  to  be  overcome), 
and  can  suggest  nothing  except  that  these 
air-waves  are  actually  driven  off  the  entire 
distance  by  the  motions  of  the  actuating 
fork  and  its  resonant  case;  and  that  such 
aerial  undulations,  after  traveling  this  dis- 
tance, are  successively  dashed  against  the 
fork  and  its  case  till  oscillation  is  gradually 
brought  about,  as  recently  explained. 

This  solution  is  manifestly  absurd  and 
impossible;  and  any  scientific  student 
would  instantly  see  it  should  he  reason  on 
air-waves  as  he  would  reason  on  water- 
waves  or  any  mechanical  result  requiring 
physical  force  and  the  overcoming  of  fric- 
tion and  inertia  by  momentum  to  effect  it. 
Simple  air-waves,  or  any  other  forms  of 
aerial  disturbance,  can  not  move  through 
the  surrounding  atmosphere,  in  its  quies- 
cent condition,  except  at  a very  slow  speed 
and  to  a very  limited  distance,  however 


9o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


they  may  be  put  into  motion,  or  whatever 
force  may  be  exerted  in  starting  them.  It 
is  astonishing  that  such  a radical  error 
should  be  universally  taught  and  believed 
as  that  an  air-wave  started  or  sent  off  by 
a tuning-fork  or  string  should  travel  on 
any  other  principle  than  if  sent  off  from  a 
fan  or  the  motion  of  the  hand.  The  prong 
of  a tuning-fork  in  passing  through  the  air 
at  full  amplitude,  moves  only  at  a very 
low  velocity,  not  one  tenth  as  fast  as  we  can 
move  an  ordinary  fan , — a fact  perhaps 
never  thought  of  by  a writer  on  sound; 
for,  if  it  had  been,  he  surely  would  have 
abandoned  the  wave-theory.  This  fact 
will  be  fully  illustrated  at  the  close  of  the 
next  chapter.  But  here  permit  me  only 
to  remark  that  it  is  mechanically  impos- 
sible for  a vibrating  fork  to  send  off  air- 
waves at  furthest  over  a foot  or  there- 
abouts from  the  oscillating  prongs,  while 
the  velocity  of  such  waves  can  not , by  any 
possibility , exceed  the  velocity  of  the  moving 
prongs  which  impell  them! 

Professor  Tyndall,  in  the  very  com- 
mencement of  his  lectures  on  sound,  in- 
dulges in  such  superficial  and  sophistical 
reasoning  on  this  question  that  I can  not 
refrain  from  pointing  it  out  here.  He 
compares,  for  example,  the  action  of  an 
air-wave  sent  off  from  a vibrating  body  to 
that  of  a spring,  which,  when  shoved  lon- 
gitudinally, moves  throughout  its  whole 
length,  though  recoiling  somewhat  under 
the  impelling  force  according  to  its  elas- 
ticity, and  leaves  the  impression  on  his 
audience  and  on  the  readers  of  his  book 
that  air-particles  act  precisely  in  the  same 
way  when  moved  by  a vibrating  body  like 
a fork  or  string.  A weaker  fallacy  was 
never  recorded;  yet  it  is  just  that  very 
logic  on  which  his  whole  theory  depends. 
Suppose  the  substance  of  a spring  to  be  as 
mobile  as  air  and  as  easily  displaced  lat- 
erally, what  becomes  of  it  when  one  end 


is  shoved  in  the  direction  of  its  length? 
If  the  shoving  motion  is  as  slow  as  that 
of  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork  (about  seven 
or  eight  inches  a second),  the  portion  of 
the  spring  in  front  of  the  impelling  body 
would  quietly  move  around  behind  as  fast 
as  it  advanced,  thus  forming  an  equili- 
brium of  the  spring’s  substance  without 
stirring  it  a foot  in  front ! If  you  move 
even  the  broad  surface  of  a fan  through 
the  air  at  a velocity  of  only  eight  inches  a 
second,  what  becomes  of  the  air  in  front  of 
it,  which  is  all  the  spring  wc  have  to  take 
into  consideration  in  this  discussion?  It 
simply  moves  around  the  fan,  quietly  and 
silently  taking  its  place  behind  it,  without 
causing  the  slightest  disturbance  or  dis- 
placement of  these  spring-particles,  so 
talked  of  by  these  learned  writers,  a dozen 
inches  in  front  of  it! 

I have  thoroughly  and  carefully  tested 
this  velocity  of  air-waves  and  this  spring- 
power  of  the  atmosphere  in  transmitting 
condensed  pulses,  so  essential  to  the  wave- 
theory,  by  moving  the  broad  side  of  a stiff 
fan  through  it  in  rapid  oscillations,  driving 
it  at  a velocity  exactly  ten  times  greater, 
by  measurement,  than  that  of  the  vibrating 
prong  of  a tuning-fork,  and  have  thus  de- 
termined the  actual  distance  such  air- 
waves can  be  made  to  travel  by  one-man 
power  in  a closed  room,  as  well  as  their 
maximum  velocity.  To  the  utter  discom- 
fiture of  the  wave-theory,  the  experiment 
showed  that  a delicate  and  sensitive  gas- 
jet  could  not  be  stirred  at  a distance  of 
more  than  twenty  to  twenty-five  feet,  while 
it  took  the  most  powerful  waves  I could 
produce,  using  all  the  strength  of  my  arm, 
five  seconds  to  travel  that  distance ! How 
fast,  then,  I ask  these  sagacious  scientists 
and  profound  thinkers,  would  the  same1^ 
kind  of  an  air-wave,  manufactured  on  ex- 
actly the  same  principle,  travel,  driven  off 
from  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork,  which  has 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


9i 


but  a hundredth  part  of  the  surface,  and 
moves  with  only  one  tenth  the  velocity  ? 

If  the  atmosphere  really  possesses 
spring-power  at  all  (which  I do  not  doubt, 
' under  proper  conditions),  and  which  adds 
to  the  velocity  of  such  manufactured  air- 
waves, I surely  ought  to  get  one  thousand 
times  the  advantage  of  it  over  the  tuning- 
fork,  having  one  hundred  times  the  surface 
with  which  to  take  hold  of  the  air,  and  ten 
times  the  velocity  by  which  to  impel)  the 
waves;  for  while  the  fork,  with  128  vibra- 
tions a second,  moves  less  than  the  six- 
teenth of  an  inch  at  a swing,  making  an 
entire  aggregate  of  less  than  eight  inches 
and  return  in  a second.  I moved  the  fan  a 
distance  of  almost  seven  feet  and  back 
each  second,  with  the  result  just  given. 

The  truth  is,  this  talk  about  the  spring- 
power  of  the  atmosphere  in  front  of  a 
fork’s  prong  when  slowly  shoved,  or  when 
the  air  is  not  confined  and  acted  on  within 
an  inclosed  space,  and  about  forcing  it 
into  “condensations  and  rarefactions”  by 
this  slow  movement,  thereby  generating 
sufficient  “heat”  and  “elasticity”  to  add 
“one  sixth”  to  the  velocity  of  sound,  as 
claimed  by  the  wave-theory,  and  as  is 
really  essential  to  its  existence,  while  the 
air  at  the  same  time  is  perfectly  free  to 
move  out  of  the  way  and  not  be  “con- 
densed,” is  the  silliest  nonsense  ever  in- 
dulged in  by  a scientific  or  unscientific 
mind;  and  conclusively  shows  either  a 
profound  ignorance  or  an  utter  disregard 
of  the  principles  of  pneumatics  and  ordi- 
nary mechanics.  A man  who  can  and 
really  does  believe  that  by  moving  the 
prongs  of  a tuning-fork  through  the  free 
air  at  a speed  of  only  eight  inches  a second , 
they  will  so  compress  or  squeeze  its  par- 
ticles together  as  to  generate  sufficient 
“heat”  and  “elasticity”  to  add  one  sixth  to 
the  velocity  of  sound,  as  does  Professor 
Tyndall,  ought  to  be  excused  should  he 


believe  in  the  most  miraculous  witchcraft 
as  well  as  in  all  the  gods  of  heathen  myth- 
ology at  once,  which  he  surely  ought  to 
be  able  to  do  without  dangerously  over- 
taxing his  credulity. 

The  only  way  to  appreciably  condense 
the  free  air  by  moving  a body  through  it, 
is  either  to  employ  a very  large  displacing 
surface,  at  considerable  velocity,  or  one, 
if  small,  at  a very  high  velocity,  as  when 
a bullet  is  fired  from  a gun.  But  it  is 
weaker  than  folly  to  talk  of  producing 
“condensations  and  rarefactions,”  and  of 
generating  sufficient  additional  heat 
thereby  to  add  one  sixth  to  the  normal 
velocity  of  sound,  all  by  the  movement  of  a 
harp-string  seven  or  eight  inches  a second 
through  atmosphere  perfectly  free  to  get 
out  of  the  way  and  not  be  “compressed”! 
The  true  solution  of  this  problem  of  at- 
mospheric spring-power  will  be  given  in  a 
short  time,  when  we  come  to  look  into  the 
nature  and  effects  of  magazine  explosions, 
which  I hope  will  cast  some  light  on  this 
long-obscured  question  of  sound-propaga- 
tion in  connection  with  the  transmission 
of  condensed  air-waves. 

The  superficiality  of  writers  on  sound  is 
really  immense!  They  actually  suppose, 
as  is  evident  from  their  writings,  that  be- 
cause a vibrating  fork  makes  a humming 
tone , its  prongs  must  therefore  necessarily 
travel  at  an  enormous  velocity,  so  as  to 
condense  the  free  air  in  front  sufficiently 
to  generate  additional  heat  and  elasticity, 
and  then  retreat  so  rapidly  as  to  create  a 
rarefaction  by  causing  a partial  vacuum ! 
This  is  no  exaggerated  statement,  as  will 
be  abundantly  proved  in  what  is  soon  to 
follow.  Professor  Tyndall,  in  his  Lectures 
on  Sound,  page  62,  speaks  of  the  motion 
of  the  fork  in  this  way : — 

“Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork 
swiftly  advancing;  it  compresses  the  air  imme- 
diately in  front  of  it,  and  when  it  retreats  it  leaves 


92 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


^partial  ’’anium  behind,  the  process  being  repeated 
at  every  subsequent  advance  and  retreat.  The 
whole  function  of  the  tuning-fork  is  to  carve  the  air 
into  these  condensations  and  rarefactions.” 

Yet  Professor  Tyndall  never  thinks  to 
tell  his  audience  of  scientific  students  that 
while  this  prong  of  the  tuning-fork  is  thus 
“ swiftly  advancing,”  cutting  and  carving 
the  air,  retreating  with  such  rapidity  as  to 
leave  a “ partial  vacuum ,”  thus  generating 
“condensations  and  rarefactions”  in  the 
open  atmosphere,  it  is  absolutely  only 
moving  at  the  snail-like  speed  of  seven 
inches  a second  in  one  direction,  or  four- 
teen counting  both!  It  is  but  fair  and 
charitable  to  say  he  did  not  know'  it,  but 
rather  that  he  really  supposed  the  prong 
of  the  fork  to  be  moving  at  a velocity 
about  equal  to  that  of  a rifle-ball,  or  he 
never  would  have  indulged  in  such  a ridi- 
culous travesty  on  science  and  fact. 

But  he  was  probably  not  so  much  to 
blame  for  this  superficial  misapprehension, 
since  his  great  mentor,  from  whom  he 
takes  most  of  his  inspirations  on  sound, 
Professor  Helmholtz,  had  repeatedly  fallen 
into  the  same  error.  Take,  for  example, 
his  erroneous  contrast  of  the  velocity  of  a 
pendulum  with  that  of  a tuning-fork’s 
!'  prongs,  as  follows: — 

“The  pendulum  swings  from  right  to  left  with  a 
uniform  motion.  . . . Near  to  either  end  of  its 
path  it  moves  slowly,  and  in  the  middle  fast. 
Among  sonorous  bodies  which  move  in  the  same 
way,  only  very  much  faster,  we  may  mention 
tuning-forks.” — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  28. 

Whereas  it  is  a fact,  which  a smart 
schoolboy  should  have  been  well  aware 
of,  that  a pendulum  which  beats  seconds 
when  thrown  into  full  oscillation,  travels 
more  than  64  inches  in  one  direction,  or 
with  more  than  four  times  the  velocity  of  a 
tuning-fork' s prongs , counting  their  vibra- 
tions in  both  directions! 

Professor  Tyndall,  again  following  the 
lead  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  as  usual,  falls 


into  the  same  mistake  in  regard  to  the 
velocity  of  a pendulum’s  movements.  He 
says : — 

“The  motion  of  a common  pendulum,  for  ex- 
ample, is  periodic ; and,  as  it  swings  through  the 
air  it  produces  waves  or  pulses  which  follow  each 
other  with  perfect  regularity.  Such  waves,  how- 
ever, are  far  too  sluggish  to  excite  the  auditory 
nerve.  To  produce  a musical  tone  we  must  have 
a body  which  vibrates  with  the  unerring  regularity 
of  the  pendulum,  but  which  can  impart  much 
sharper  and  quicker  shocks  to  the  air.” — Lectures 
on  Sound,  p.  49. 

How  can  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork, 
with  only  one  quarter  the  velocity  of  a pendu- 
lum, “impart  much  sharper  and  quicker 
shocks  to  the  air"  by  dividing  up  this  slower 
movement  into  sixteenths  of  an  inch  in- 
stead of  continuing  its  accumulated  motion 
sixty-four  inches  at  a sweep?  And  how 
can  this  motion  of  the  pendulum  be  called 
“sluggish,”  while  the  motion  of  the  prong, 
having  but  one  fourth  the  velocity,  is  called 
“much  quicker”? 

It  seems  strange,  to  say  the  least,  that 
such  careful  and  profound  thinkers  should 
be  so  easily  misled  by  appearances,  though 
it  affords  a satisfactory  answer  to  the 
query  why  it  is  that  the  wave-theory  of 
sound,  so  clearly  a scientific  fallacy,  should 
be  at  the  present  moment  believed  in  by 
the  ablest  minds  of  the  world.  It  can  only 
be  because  the  theory  was  originally  based 
on  a few  such  superficialities  as  I am  now 
pointing  out,  and  which  no  modern  physi- 
cist has  had  the  originality  or  mental  in- 
dependence to  see  through  and  expose. 

In  order  to  get  a clear  insight  into  this 
actual  but  deceptive  velocity  of  a tuning- 
fork’s  prongs,  and  thus  wipe  out  this  sur- 
face idea  of  their  “ swiftly  advancing”  os- 
cillations, I have  only  to  take  the  fork  in 
my  hand  and  swing  it  bodily  through  the, 
air  back  and  forth  a distance  of  eight  * 
inches,  making  one  complete  oscillation 
each  second,  in  which  case  I move  it  just 


Ciiai\  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


93 


as  rapidly  as  its  prongs  move  when  sound- 
ing, as  a moment’s  calculation  will  show, 
while  I produce  vastly  more  mechanical 
and  undulatory  effect  upon  the  surround- 
ing atmosphere  by  the  longer  oscillations; 
for,  while  the  sounding  prong  moves  but  a 
very  short  distance  in  one  direction  and 
then  retreats,  losing  the  effect  of  its  for- 
ward motion  in  driving  the  air  into  any 
kind  of  waves  or  pulses,  I swing  it  bodily 
at  the  same  velocity  exactly,  but  by  con- 
tinuing and  thus  accumulating  the  motion 
to  a greater  distance  in  one  direction  with- 
out interrupting  its  action,  I evidently 
must  produce  a greater  mechanical  effect 
on  the  air  in  front  of  it  than  if  the  long 
swing  were  subdivided  up  into  128  short 
motions,  with  not  a particle  more  distance 
traveled  in  the  aggregate.  One  would 
think  that  a man  with  the  least  mechan- 
ical intuition  could  see  this,  and,  in  seeing 
it, would  instantly  abandon  the  wave-theory 
of  sound  as  a most  transparent  scientific 
fallacy. 

The  law  governing  the  generation  of 
tone  by  a vibrating  fork  or  string  may 
now  be  concisely  stated  as  follows : — 

It  is  not  the  mechanical  effect  of  the  nu- 
merous short  motions  back  and  forth  on  the 
surrounding  air  which  generates  the  tone  of 
a fork  or  string,  but  it  is  the  molecular  effect 
of  the  sudden  stops  and  starts  on  the  atomic 
structure  of 'the  instrument  itself  \ causing 
thereby  the  emission  of  the  substantial  pulses 
we  call  Sound,  while  the  atmosphere,  wood, 
water,  or  iron,  through  which  they  pass  is 
but  their  conducting  medium, — any  motion 
of  such  medium,  caused  at  the  time  by  the  vi- 
bration of  the  sound-producing  body , being 
but  incidental. 

I call  the  attention  of  physicists  to  this 
important  law,  embodying,  as  I conceive, 
the  true  philosophy  of  the  generation  of 
tone,  here  for  the  first  time  announced; 
and  I earnestly  solicit  their  impartial  judg- 


ment on  the  subject,  in  view  of  what  has 
been  and  what  is  yet  to  be  offered  against 
the  theory  of  wave-motion, — which,  up  to 
the  present  time,  is  the  only  hypothesis 
ever  framed  to  solve  this  difficult  problem 
of  sonorous  propagation. 

Upon  these  sudden  stops  and  starts  of 
a sounding  string  or  tuning-fork,  occurring 
at  the  rate  of  a certain  definite  number 
per  second,  depends  the  pitch  of  its  tone. 
As  these  vibratory  swings  necessarily  but 
incidentally  produce  air-waves  or  atmos- 
pheric disturbances  in  the  immediate  vi- 
cinity of  the  instrument,  it  was  an  easy 
matter  for  Pythagoras,  2,500  years  ago,  to 
make  the  superficial  observation  and  draw 
the  weak  inference,  that,  since  the  wider 
oscillations  of  the  chord  make  the  louder 
sounds,  hence  that  the  loudness  of  a tone 
must  also  depend  on  the  amplitude  of 
these  incidental  air-waves,  or  mechanically 
on  the  distance  the  air-particles  swing  “to 
and  fro’’  as  the  sound  is  propagated  to  a 
distant  ear.  And  marvelous  as  it  may 
seem,  this  superficial  but  erroneous  view 
has  continued  to  prevail  to  the  present 
time,  philosophers  still  continuing  to  echo 
the  observation  and  inference  of  Pythag- 
oras, that  as  the  string  swings  greatest 
when  the  tone  is  loudest,  hence  the  loud- 
ness of  a tone  at  a distance  from  the 
sounding  body  must  necessarily  depend 
on  the  amplitude  of  the  oscillating  air- 
waves, which,  instead  of  traveling  as  sup- 
posed 1120  feet  a second,  absolutely  do 
not  and  can  not  move  away  from  the  string 
a total  distance  of  more  than  a dozen 
inches ! 

Even  as  great  a philosopher  as  Professor 
Helmholtz,  observing  that  the  loudest 
sound  occurs  when  the  string  has  the 
greatest  amplitude,  jumps  to  the  same 
superficial  conclusion  that  this  propor- 
tional width  of  swing  is  transferred  to  the 
atmosphere,  and  continued  on  through  it 


94 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


to  a distance,  the  air-particles  oscillating 
at  a less  and  less  width  as  the  sound  grows 
weaker  and  weaker.  He  says:— 

“We  easily  recognize  [just  as  Pythagoras  did] 
that  the  force  or  loudness  of  a musical  tone  increases 
or  diminishes  with,  the  extent  or  so-called  amplitjide 
of  the  oscillations  of  the  particles  of  the  sounding 
body.  When  we  strike  a string  its  vibrations  are 
at  first  sufficiently  large  for  us  to  see  them,  and  its 
corresponding  tone  is  loudest.  The  visible  vibra- 
tions become  smaller  and  smaller,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  loudness  diminishes.  . . . The  same  con- 
clusion results  from  the  diminution  of  the  loudness 
of  a tone  when  we  increase  our  distance  from  the 
sounding  body  in  the  open  air,  although  the  pilch 
and  quality  remain  unaltered ; for  it  is  only  the 
amplitude  of  the  oscillations  of  the  particles  of  air 
which  diminishes  as  their  distance  from  the  sound- 
ing body  increases.  Hence , loudness  must  depend 
on  this  amplitude." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  17. 

Thus,  the  greatest  physical  philosopher 
of  the  present  time  can  see  no  deeper  into 
these  beautiful  effects  than  to  follow  Pyth- 
agoras, and  suppose  that  the  inertia  of  four 
square  miles  of  air  can  be  overcome,  and 
all  its  particles  made  to  oscillate  back  and 
forth  a definite  distance  more  than  4,000 
times  a second  by  the  note  of  a piccolo 
flute,  thus  creating  condensations  and  rare- 
factions and  generating  “heat”  sufficient 
to  add  “one  sixth"  to  the  velocity  of  this 
sound,  requiring  hundreds  of  millions  of 
tons  pressure,  as  I will  clearly  demonstrate 
before  this  chapter  is  ended!  This  ob- 
servation of  these  renowned  scientists  is 
just  as  devoid  of  foundation  in  fact  or 
philosophy  as  that  of  the  little  child, which, 
seeing  the  trees  swing  back  and forth  farthest 
as  the  wind  blows  strongest , supposes  that 
this  swinging  of  the  trees  is  the  cause  of 
the  wind  rather  than  its  effect!  I remem- 
ber distinctly  that  this  was  my  earliest 
scientific  impression  as  to  the  true  cause 
of  the  wind,  when  I was  about  four  years 
old  (I  should  now  be  ashamed  to  have 
been  any  older),  and  so  explained  it  to  my 
sister,  who  still  recollects  the  same  highly 


philosophical  observation,  which  was  at 
least  equal  in  scientific  profundity  to  these 
sonorous  observations  of  Pythagoras  and 
Helmholtz. 

It  really  seems  that  no  physicist  has 
been  able  to  look  below  this  surface  idea 
and  grasp  the  thought  that  the  reason  why 
the  greater  periodic  swing  of  a vibrating 
chord  produces  the  louder  tone  is  because 
it  generates  and  radiates  a greater  quan- 
tity of  sonorous  substance,  just  as  the 
longer  sweep  or  deeper  cut  of  the  har- 
vester’s cradle  brings  down  the  greater 
quantity  of  grain ; and  that  the  reason 
why  the  sound  becomes  weaker  and  weaker 
as  the  distance  from  its  source  becomes 
greater,  is  simply  because  the  sonorous 
particles,  radiating  in  all  directions,  natu- 
rally and  necessarily  become  sparccr  and 
sparcer  the  more  space  they  are  distributed 
over,  which  accordingly  involves  the  fact 
that  a less  and  less  number  of  these  sound- 
atoms  strike  the  tympanic  membrane  the 
farther  the  ear  is  from  the  sound-producing 
body,  just  as  a less  and  less  number  of  sub- 
stantial odorous  particles  enters  the  nose 
the  farther  it  is  from  the  source  of  the  fra- 
grance. 

Instead  of  a conclusion  so  rational, 
logical,  and  every  way  scientific,  though 
lying  beneath  the  surface,  Pythagoras  ob- 
served the  merely  accidental  air-waves 
generated  by  the  string,  and  took  all  the 
rest  for  granted ; and  although  the  slightest 
mechanical  intuition  should  have  con- 
vinced him  that  such  waves  were  but  inci- 
dental, as  the  effect  of  the  motion  which 
produced  the  tone  and  not  its  cause,  these 
palpable  and  self-evident  facts  and  data 
were  ignored,  and  the  childish  hypothesis 
maintained  that  these  same  incidental  and 
meaningless  disturbances  of  the  air  were 
absolutely  the  cause  of  the  tone,  and  con- 
tinued on  through  the  dense  atmosphere 
at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a second,  of 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


95 


nineteen  hundred  times  greater  than  the  mo- 
tions of  the  string  10 hi eh  gave  them  their 
impetus!  But  the  strangest  thing  of  all  is 
that  every  writer  on  sound  from  that  time 
to  the  present  has  continued  to  hold  on 
to  the  same  preposterous  idea. 

Physicists,  however,  who  take  their  in- 
spirations from  Pythagoras,  or  even  from 
the  great  German  investigator,  Helmholtz, 
as  does  Professor  Tyndall,  will  be  certain 
to  fall  into  the  gravest  of  errors,  as  just 
seen  in  regard  to  the  velocity  of  a tuning- 
fork’s  prongs  as  compared  to  that  of  a 
swinging  pendulum. 

For  example,  take  the  explanation  given 
by  Professor  Helmholtz  of  the  manner  in 
which  a violin-string  oscillates  under  the 
action  of  the  bow.  A more  superficial  and 
inexcusable  misapprehension  does  not 
occur  in  any  work  on  physics  making  the 
least  pretensions  to  scientific  accuracy, 
though  his  explanation  is  a vital  one,  as 
will  be  seen,  to  the  wave-theory  in  some 
of  its  essential  features.  I will  now  show 
this  so  clearly  that  the  unscientific  reader 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  comprehending 
the  unenviable  plight  of  this  learned  au- 
thority. 

He  illustrates  the  action  of  a bowed 
string  by  the  motion  of  a trip-hammer, 
which  is  slowly  raised  by  the  mill-work 
and  then  let  drop  suddenly,  with  vastly 
greater  velocity  than  it  ascended,  the  mill- 
work  representing  the  bow,  while  the  fall- 
ing hammer  represents  the  string.  But  I 
will  give  his  own  words  in  full,  that  the 
reader  may  the  better  see  the  force  of  my 
comments : — 

‘‘Among  motions  which  produce  musical  sounds, 
that  of  a violin-string,  excited  by  a bow,  would 
most  nearly  correspond  with  this  [trip-hammer],  as 
will  be  seen  from  the  detailed  description  in  Chap. 
V.  The  string  clings  for  a time  to  the  bow , and  is 
carried  along  by  it , then  suddenly  releases  itself, 
like  the  hammer  in  the  mill,  and  like  the  latter 
retreats  somewhat,  with  much  greater  velocity  than 


it  advanced , and  is  again  caught  by  the  bow  and 
carried  forward"  ! — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  29. 

The  above  remarkable  scientific  state- 
ment is  the  more  astounding  when  we  re- 
flect that  Professor  Helmholtz  is  a prac- 
tical violinist  of  considerable  attainment 
in  the  art,  as  well  as  one  of  the  greatest 
acousticians  of  the  present  time.  Ye;  he 
does  not  seem  to  know  the  important  fact, 
that  if  a bow  should  travel  slower  than  the 
string’s  normal  oscillation  at  the  place 
where  the  hair  touches  it,  as  he  tells  us  it 
always  does,  there  would  be  no  sound  pro- 
duced, since  even  an  attempted  vibration  of 
the  string  would  be  instantly  checked  and 
interrupted,  and  its  tone  destroyed  by  the 
slower  movement  of  the  hair!  If  a string 
can  fly  back  when  released  from  the  ros- 
ined hair  “with  much  greater  velocity  than 
it  advanced’’  or  than  the  bow  was  travel- 
ing, as  he  distinctly  teaches,  then  it  will  of 
course  rebound  forward  again  faster  than 
the  bow  is  moving,  since  its  motion  must 
necessarily  be  nearly  the  same  one  way  as 
the  other,  when  free  to  move.  How,  then, 
in  the  name  of  acoustics  and  mechanics, 
is  it  to  be  “again  caught  by  the  bow  and 
carried  forward,”  since  it  is  already  mov- 
ing “forward”  with  “ much  greater  velocity  ” 
than  the  bow?  If  Professor  Helmholtz  is 
right,  the  “much  greater  velocity”  of  the 
rebounding  string  would  catch  the  bow 
and  carry  it  “forward”!  And  since  the 
string  could  not  be  expected  to  carry  for- 
ward the  slowly  moving  bow  held  in  the 
player’s  hand,  the  string  itself  would  of 
course  have  to  stop.  The  reader  must  see 
that  it  is  an  unavoidable  necessity  for  the 
bow  to  be  always  moving  with  as  great  ve- 
locity at  least  as  the  normal  oscillation  of 
the  string  when  swinging  in  the  same  di- 
rection or  when  flying  back  after  being  re- 
leased from  the  bow,  or  otherwise  the  hair 
would  not  carry  the  string  with  it,  but  the 
string  would  have  to  carry  the  hair;  and, 


96 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


as  before  observed,  would  stop.  Yet  this 
highest  living  authority  on  acoustics  tells 
us,  as  above  quoted,  that  the  string  of  the 
violin,  when  momentarily  released  from 
the  hair,  will  swing  back  “with  much 
greater  velocity  than  it  advanced,”  or  than 
the  bow  was  moving,  which  would  neces- 
sarily cause  it  to  outstrip  the  bow  at  its 
next  swing  forward,  or  else  to  stop  at  each 
backward  vibration  (which,  of  course,  it 
could  not  and  would  not  do),  and  wait  for 
the  slowly  moving  bow  to  again  pick  it  up 
and  carry  it  along! 

Now,  to  enlighten  this  physicist,  for  he 
certainly  needs  it,  let  us  look  at  the  actual 
movement  of  a bowed  string  mechanically 
for  a moment.  The  open  G-string  of  a 
violin  makes  198  complete  oscillations  in  a 
second.  By  the  most  accurate  observation 
and  measurement  it  is  ascertained  that 
this  string  does  not  vibrate  in  ordinary 
playing  over  one  sixty  fourth  of  an  inch  at 
the  nodal  point,  or  where  the  hair  rubs  it, 
which  is  about  one  tenth  of  its  length, 
measuring  from  the  bridge,  thus  making 
the  aggregate  velocity  of  the  string  at  this 
point,  or  the  whole  distance  it  travels  in 
one  direction,  but  three  inches  in  a second. 
To  produce  an  ordinarily  loud  tone,  there- 
fore, the  violinist  is  compelled  to  draw  his 
bow  at  a velocity  of  at  least  three  inches 
in  a second,  or  otherwise  his  lagging  bow 
must  of  necessity  interfere  with  the  string’s 
normal  oscillation  and  tend  to  check  it, 
thus  preventing  its  tone. 

It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  in 
producing  a very  soft  tone,  as  in  piano 
passages,  the  string  necessarily  oscillates 
considerably  less  than  when  yielding  a full 
sound,  possibly  not  the  one  half  of  a sixty- 
fourth,  making  an  aggregate  distance  trav- 
eled in  one  direction  of  not  over  an  inch 
and  a half  in  a second,  in  which  case  the 
bow,  pressed  very  lightly,  would  only  need 
to  travel  at  a corresponding  velocity,  and 


still  make  a pure  tone.  Less  velocity  than 
this  would  again  destroy  it. 

It  is  also  true  that  in  producing  a very 
heavy  note  on  the  violin  (in  which  case 
the  bow  has  to  be  pressed  down  with  con- 
siderable force),  this  G-string  will  be  often 
observed  to  oscillate  at  its  center  nearly 
or  quite  a quarter  of  an  inch,  which  would 
make  its  swing  at  the  nodal  point  about 
the  twenty-fifth  of  an  inch,  or  eight  inches 
a second  in  one  direction  ; but  in  such  a 
case  as  this,  the  violinist  is  absolutely 
compelled  to  move  the  bow  at  a velocity 
of  at  least  eight  inches  in  a second , or  he 
will  not  produce  the  slightest  semblance 
of  a musical  tone,  though  he  may,  as  will 
be  soon  explained,  move  it  as  much  faster 
as  he  pleases.  If  he  should  drop  below 
this  velocity  while  pressing  down  the  bow 
sufficiently  to  cause  this  large  oscillation 
of  the  string,  the  musical  tone  instantly 
ceases  and  degenerates  into  a horrid 
scratch  which  no  sensitive  ear  can  ' idure 
but  for  a moment.  This  scratch  occurs 
for  the  reason  I have  already  given,  by  the 
oscillations  of  the  string  being  started  and 
prematurely  checked  before  reaching  their 
normal  limit  by  the  too  sluggish  movement 
of  the  bow.  Any  violinist  can  easily  dem- 
onstrate the  truth  of  what  I am  now  say- 
ing (which  equally  demonstrates  the  enor- 
mity of  the  error  into  which  Professor 
Helmholtz  has  fallen),  that  the  bow  never 
does  and  never  can  travel  slower  than  the 
string  normally  oscillates  when  producing 
a musical  tone.  He  has  only  to  remember, 
as  the  basis  of  his  calculation,  that  the 
G-string  has  just  198  complete  vibrations 
in  a second,  and  then  calculate  the  dis- 
tance it  oscillates. 

Now,  while  the  minimum  velocity  of  the 
bow,  to  produce  pure  tone,  must  of  neces- 
sity be  equal  at  least  to  the  velocity  of  the 
string’s  normal  oscillation  (never  less,  as 
Professor  Helmholtz  says  it  always  is),  yet 


ClIAl'.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


97 


any  violinist  knows,  or  may  easily  know, 
that  the  bow  may  travel  as  much  swifter 
than  the  string  oscillates  as  the  player 
chooses,  many  times,  when  great  power  is 
required,  with  a velocity  six  or  eight  times 
that  of  the  string,  often  moving  a distance 
of  even  thirty  and  forty  inches  in  a second, 
since  the  greater  velocity  of  the  bow  will  al- 
ways be  sure  to  catch  the  string  exactly  at  the 
commencement  of  each  of  its  swings  in  the 
direction  in  which  the  bow  is  traveling  ct 
the  time , and  thus  facilitate  its  movement 
from  the  start ! 

Strange  to  say,  the  thing  turns  out  ex- 
actly the  opposite  of  what  Professor  Helm- 
holtz supposed,  and  the  facts  are  precisely 
the  reverse  of  those  on  which  his  elaborate 
theory  was  based ! While  he  tells  us,  as 
just  quoted,  that  the  string  always  and  ne- 
cessarily travels  slowly  with  the  bow , and 
swings  back  “with  much  greater  velocity 
than  it  .advanced,”  the  same  as  a trip- 
hammer falls,  it  is  here  demonstrated  to 
be  a scientific  fact,  that,  in  all  ordinary 
playing,  the  string  positively  travels  at 
least  four  times  faster  with  the  bow  than 
it  can  oscillate  when  released,  as  it  is  per- 
fectly clear  that  it  can  only  fly  back  at  its 
normal  velocity  or  rate  of  swing,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  length,  size,  weight,  and  ten- 
sion. Thus,  the  string  in  all  ordinary 
playing  absolutely  acts  in  diametrical  op- 
position to  what  Professor  Helmholtz 
teaches,  since  it  travels  with  the  bow,  or 
while  it  clings  to  the  rosined  hair,  '“with 
much  greater  velocity  than  it”  retreats, 
after  being  momentarily  released,  since  it 
can  only  swing  back  in  accordance  with 
its  normal  pendulous  rate  of  oscillation, 
or  at  a speed  of,  say,  three  to  six  inches  a 
second , while  i:  is  compelled  to  travel  with 
the  bow  or  while  clinging  to  it  at  the  rate 
at  least  of  the  bow’s  movement,  or  a full 
average  of  a foot  to  two  feet  a second ! 
It  thus  makes  its  journey  with  the  bow  in 


about  one  quarter  the  time  it  takes  to  re- 
turn! There  is  not,  perhaps,  in  the  inves- 
tigations of  science  a case  on  record  where 
all  the  facts  and  figures  relied  on  to  favor 
a theory  have  been  so  clearly  and  demon- 
strably shown  to  be  exactly  the  reverse! 
I challenge  the  world  to  show  a parallel. 
Assumed  facts  of  science  have  been  often 
proved  to  be  incorrect  and  entirely  misap- 
prehended; but  never,  so  far  as  I know,  to 
be  precisely  the  reverse,  in  every  sense  of 
the  word,  and  to  demonstrate  the  exact 
opposite  of  the  explicit  requirements  of 
the  hypothesis,  and  that,  too,  when  the 
theory  is  under  the  manipulation  of  its 
ablest  exponent. 

Another  marked  peculiarity  of  this 
string’s  movement,  which  this  careful  in- 
vestigator appears  never  to  have  thought 
of,  must  not  be  here  overlooked.  While 
the  string  is  traveling  with  the  bow  at  a 
much  greater  velocity  than  it  can  swing 
backward,  it  must  necessarily  travel  at  a 
uniform  speed  from  the  commencement  to 
the  end  of  its  journey  in  that  direction, 
since  the  bow  necessarily  travels  in  that 
manner;  whereas,  when  it  retreats,  after 
being  released  from  the  rosined  hair,  it  at 
first  starts  back  slowly,  moving  faster  and 
faster,  the  same  as  a pendulum,  till  it 
reaches  the  center  of  its  amplitude  and 
accomplishes  one  half  of  its  swing,  from 
which  point  it  moves  on  by  its  acquired 
momentum  through  the  other  half  of  its 
journey,  swiftest  as  it  leaves  the  center, 
but  slower  and  slower  till  it  reaches  the 
other  limit  of  its  swing.  No  one  disputes 
this  pendulous  movement  of  a string, when 
drawn  aside  and  released.  With  this  self- 
evident  law  before  him,  Professor  Helm- 
holtz tells  us  that  the  string,  after  being 
released  from  the  rosined  hair,  swings  back 
just  as  a hammer  falls  after  being  released 
from  the  trip-wheel;  whereas,  any  school- 
boy who  has  studied  natural  philosophy  a 


98 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


month  knows  that  a hammer  starts  slowly 
at  the  commencement  of  its  descent,  and 
falls  faster  and  faster  to  the  end  of  its 
journey,  increasing  in  velocity  throughout 
the  entire  distance  by  a certain  definite 
ratio  based  on  its  constantly  accumulating 
momentum  added  to  its  gravity,  which 
ratio  of  increased  velocity  would  be  main- 
tained by  a body  falling  toward  the  earth 
for  any  distance,  if  a thousand  miles,  minus 
the  resistance  of  the  air.  Is  it  possible  that 
this  greatest  of  modern  physicists  is  not 
aware  of  this  law  of  a falling  hammer,  and 
of  the  pendulous  law  governing  the  move- 
ment of  an  oscillating  string  when  drawn 
to  one  side  and  released?  To  suppose 
him  ignorant  of  these  well-known  laws  is 
to  suppose  an  impossibility.  To  suppose 
he  knowingly  misrepresented  the  facts,  to 
favor  the  theory  of  “vibrational  form”  he 
was  laboring  to  establish,  is  inconceivable. 
I leave  him  to  the  mercy  of  a charitable 
world. 

Such  erroneous  and  superficial  concep- 
tions of  the  physics  of  sound  generation 
and  propagation  as  the  foregoing,  are  the 
very  kind  of  scientific  data  on  which  the 
entire  wave-theory  rests.  Yet  with  all 
these  and  similar  absolutely  laughable 
misapprehensions,  which  will  be  abun- 
dantly pointed  out  as  the  argument  ad- 
vances,! am  sincerely  and  kindly  cautioned 
by  my  friends  not  to  assail  this  theory,  or 
venture  into  collision  with  such  names  as 
those  of  Tyndall,  Helmholtz,  and  Mayer, 
unless  I desire  to  be  so  finely  pulverized, 
as  one  of  them  expressed  it,  that  it  would 
“require  a microscope  of  several  horse- 
power to  detect  the  fragments!”  The 
reader  can  well  imagine,  that,  knowing  as 
I did  of  scores  of  just  such  scientific  esca- 
pades by  these  great  authors,  such  as  those 
I am  now  evolving  from  their  writings,  I 
I felt  very  little  alarm  at  these  annihilating 
predictions. 


In  view  of  the  foregoing  inversion  of 
the  facts  and  arguments  of  Professor 
Helmholtz,  showing  them  to  establish  the 
exact  opposite  of  what  he  intended  them 
to  prove, what  must  become  of  the  various 
graphical  diagrams  which  this  writer  has 
taken  the  trouble  to  prepare  for  his  book, 
illustrating  the  “vibrational  form”  sup- 
posed to  take  place  in  bowed  strings,  every 
one  of  which  is  based  on  this  idea  of  the 
trip-hammer  moving  up  only  a tenth  as 
rapidly  as  it  falls,  and  this  self-evident 
fallacy  that  the  bow  must  act  in  the  same 
way,  always  traveling  about  ten  times 
slower  than  the  string’s  normal  oscilla- 
tion ? A child  might  have  confounded 
this  great  philosopher  by  asking  what 
makes  the  string  vibrate  at  all  if  the  bow 
travels  ten  times  slower  than  the  string 
naturally  swings?  For,  it  is  a recorded 
fact,  that,  in  his  very  first  diagram  illus- 
trating this  principle  of  the  trip-hammer’s 
movement  and  that  of  a bowed  string  (page 
32),  he  shows  that  it  takes  the  hammer  ten 
times  as  long  to  be  lifted  as  it  does  for  it  to 
fall;  whereas  the  intuition  of  the  child 
would  have  taught  him  that  as  the  motion 
of  the  bow  causes  the  string  to  keep  up 
its  oscillation,  it  must  of  necessity  travel 
as  fast  at  least  as  the  string  can  oscillate, 
and  in  all  ordinary  playing  much  faster! 
And  what,  I may  ask,  further,  becomes  of 
his  “law,”  which  he  so  elaborately  formu- 
lates, that  the  quality  of  tone  is  caused  by 
the  vibrational  form  of  the  oscillating  in- 
strument and  of  the  air-waves  which  it 
thus  produces,  when  his  principal  graphical 
illustration  and  proof  of  this  law,  repeated 
five  times,  is  this  same  misconception  of 
the  bow  having  only  about  one  tenth  the 
normal  velocity  of  the  string? 

As  I have  clearly  shown,  by  figures 
which  every  physicist  will  admit,  and  which 
any  observer  can  see  to  be  correct  by  the 
J least  attention  to  a violinist  when  playing, 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


99 


that  in  all  ordinary  execution  on  the  violin 
the  bow  must  travel  and  actually  does 
travel  at  least  four  or  five  times  as  fast  as 
a string  normally  oscillates  at  the  nodal 
point,  moving  from  twelve  inches  to  two 
feet  a second,  thus  carrying  the  string  along 
with  it  four  or  five  times  faster  than  it  can 
fly  back  again , it  gives  us  the  somewhat 
novel  and  startling  mechanical  improve- 
ment in  trip-hammers  which  would  require 
them  to  fall  only  about  one  quarter  as  fast 
as  they  are  lifted  by  the  mill-work,  that  is, 
if  their  movement  corresponds  to  that  of 
the  string  when  excited  by  the  bow,  as  this 
philosopher  teaches!  If  his  mechanical 
ideas  concerning  the  principle  of  a trip- 
hammer’s movement  are  here  correctly 
represented  by  the  motion  of  a string  as 
compared  to  that  of  a bow,  I doubt  if  any 
mill-owners  would  care  to  employ  him  to 
superintend  the  construction  of  their  ma- 
chinery ! A trip-hammer  falling  with  only 
one  quarter  the  velocity  of  its  ascent,  as 
is  proved  to  be  the  case  with  the  string, 
would  do  but  little  forging  unless  the  anvil 
were  placed  above  it,  which  is  evidently 
the  way  this  philosopher  would  have  to 
construct  it ! But  I will  not  be  too  hard 
on  him,  and  will  agree  to  let  him  off  on 
the  condition  that  he  at  once  renounce 
the  wave-theory  of  sound  and  adopt  the 
hypothesis  of  substantial  sonorous  pulses! 

A true  theory  is  always  consistent  with 
itself,  or  at  least  may  be,  even  down  to  the 
unimportant  minutite  of  its  details;  and 
though  there  may  be  phenomena  involved 
in  its  analysis  which  it  can  not  explain, 
such  phenomena,  nevertheless,  can  not 
contradict  it;  whereas  a false  theory,  how- 
ever plausible  or  apparently  consistent  in 
its  principal  features,  is  certain  to  contra- 
dict itself  in  the  discussion  of  details. 
Such  we  shall  see  to  be  the  case  all  the 
way  through  this  investigation  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound. 


This  fallacious  reasoning  of  Professor 
Helmholtz,  based,  as  we  have  seen,  on  his 
utter  misconception  of  facts  which  the 
commonest  observer  should  have  noted, 
is  not  a whit  more  surprising  than  that  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  just  hinted  at,  in  sup- 
posing that  a tuning-fork’s  prongs  must 
necessarily  move  with  enormous  velocity, 
when,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  as  the 
reader  can  instantly  calculate,  they  can 
not  travel  in  one  direction  over  seven  or 
eight  inches  a second,  or,  counting  both 
directions,  more  than  fourteen  to  sixteen 
inches  in  the  same  time.  This  being  the 
fact,  what,  then,  becomes  of  his  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions”  of  the  atmosphere 
wrought  by  this  snail-like  motion, with  the 
heat  and  additional  elasticity  of  the  air  thus 
generated  sufficient  to  add  “ one  sixth"  to 
the  velocity  of  sound,  which  hypothesis  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
wave-theory, as  will  be  soon  demonstrated? 
I will  again  quote  his  language  : — 

“ Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork 
swiftly  advancing  [at  the  rate  of  seven  inches  a sec- 
ond!] ; it  compresses  the  air  immediately  in  front 
of  it,  and  when  it  retreats  it  leaves  & partial  vacuum 
behind,  the  process  being  repealed  at  every  subse- 
quent advance  and  retreat.  The  whole  ftmetion 
of  the  tuning-fork  is  to  carve  the  air  into  these  con- 
densations and  rarefactions." — Lectures  on  Sound , 
p.  62. 

The  Professor  may  well  request  us  to 
“ imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating 
fork  swiftly  advancing”;  for,  whenever  the 
reader  is  undeceived  on  this  subject  by  a 
correct  statement  of  its  facts,  and  thus  be- 
comes aware  that  the  prong  of  the  fork 
only  moves  seven  inches  in  a second,  not 
one  half  as  fast  as  a year-old  baby  can 
walk,  it  requires  a considerable  stretch  of 
the  imagination  to  see  it  “ swiftly  advanc- 
ing,” thus  carving  the  air  into  a “conden- 
sation,” and  then  retreating  so  “swiftly” 
as  to  cause  a “rarefaction”  by  leaving  a 
“ partial  vacuum  behind all  of  which  gen- 


ICO 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


erate  the  required  heat  and  elasticity  to 
enable  these  air-waves  to  travel  with  suffi- 
ciently augmented  velocity  not  to  contra- 
dict the  wave-theory!  Not  a word  does 
this  scientist  suggest  as  to  the  possibility 
of  the  fork  generating  its  tone  by  the  mob 
ocular  effect  of  its  numerous  sudden  stops 
and  starts  on  the  atomic  structure  of  the 
instrument  itself,  the  only  rational  suppo- 
sition possible  in  the  premises!  An  intel- 
lect capable  of  imagining  a tuning-fork 
“ swiftly  advancing,”  and  generating  heat 
by  squeezing  the  air  into  “condensations” 
when  only  traveling  at  the  rate  of  seven 
inches  a second,  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  grasp  an  idea  so  beautiful,  fundamental, 
and  scientific,  as  the  one  suggested  by  the 
above  molecular  hypothesis. 

I have  sometimes  wondered  if  this  lec- 
turer ever  thought  of  the  really  amusing 
character  of  this  tuning-fork’s  perform- 
ance, as  he  has  described  it!  He  tells  us 
that  when  it  advances  it  “ compresses  the  air 
immediately  in  front  of  it,  and  when  it  re- 
treats it  leaves  a partial  vacuum  behind.” 
Now,  this  amounts  to  an  unprovoked 
scientific  slander  on  our  atmosphere! 
With  all  its  acknowledged  elasticity  or 
spring-power,  especially  under  pressure, — 
one  of  its  most  persistent,  important,  and 
undeniable  characteristics, — it  is  here 
made  out  to  be  so  lazy  and  sluggish,  under 
the  manipulation  of  this  learned  savant, 
that,  even  after  it  has  been  compressed  into 
a condensation,  it  allows  the  prong  of  a 
tuning-fork  when  traveling  but  seven  inches 
a second  to  run  right  away  from  it  and 
leave  a partial  vacuum! 

Seriously,  I think  it  is  about  time  for 
physicists  to  call  a convention,  and  recon- 
sider this  entire  question  of  sound-propa- 
gation, or  else  hire  some  good  mechanic 
to  reconstruct  their  wave-theory,  and  so 
to  arrange  it  that  its  parts  will  hang  to- 
gether. unless  they  want  the  whole  thing 


to  become  the  laughing-stock  of  the  un- 
scientific world ' For,  at  the  present  rate 
of  progress,  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz, its  two  ablest  and  most  popular  ex- 
ponents, are  fast  bringing  the  hypothesis 
into  contempt.  To  make  out,  as  they  do, 
that  the  compression  of  the  air,  by  this  slow 
forward  movement  of  the  fork’s  prong, will 
send  off  a condensed  wave  1120  feet  a 
second,  or  at  the  observed  velocity  of 
sound,  and  then  tell  us  that  the  same  con- 
densed wave,  after  being  compressed,  can 
not  recoil  fast  enough  to  keep  up  with  the 
retreating  prong  and  prevent  a vacuum,  re- 
quiring only  this  same  velocity  of  seven  inches- 
a second,  is  laughable  enough  to  have  a 
place  in  the  funniest  column  of  Punch. 

Returning  now  for  a moment  to  the 
tuning-fork  upon  its  resonant  case  vibrat- 
ing by  sympathy  180  feet  distant  from  the 
actuating  fork,  I ask  what  explanation  can 
possibly  be  given  of  such  a sonorous  effect 
save  the  one  assumed  in  my  hypothesis  of 
substantial  pulses,  having  a definite  law 
controlling  their  velocity  of  propagation? 
AVe  have  seen  that  literal,  physical  air- 
waves, moulded  and  driven  off  from  the 
prongs  of  the  oscillating  fork,  moving  but 
seven  inches  in  a second,  if  they  should 
travel  as  swiftly  as  the  moving  prongs 
themselves  (and  they  surely  can  move  no 
faster),  and  if  all  inertia  and  atmospheric 
friction,  or  tendency  to  quiescence,  were 
abolished,  would  require  over  five  minutes 
to  pass  from  one  fork  to  the  other!  Yet  we 
absolutely  know  that  the  sympathising 
fork  commences  responding  to  the  other 
the  moment  the  sound  is  heard  by  the 
assistant  standing  near  it,  or  in  almost  one 
two-thousandth  part  of  the  time  it  would 
take  an  air-wave  at  its  highest  possible 
velocity  to  reach  it  were  there  nothing  to 
hinder  its  progress! 

On  the  Hypothesis  of  sound  consisting 
of  substantial  pulses  generated  by  the 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


IOI 


actuating  fork,  augmented  and  diffused  by 
its  resonant  case  and  its  sympathetic  air- 
column,  and  radiating  through  the  atmos- 
phere by  a law  of  conduction  peculiar  to 
sonorous  pulses,  as  light  is  radiated  by  a 
law  peculiar  to  luminous  discharges,  it  is 
easy  comprehending  that  such  sonorous 
discharges  might  travel  to  the  distant  fork 
at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a second,  or  at 
the  observed  velocity  of  sound,  without  any 
regard  whatever  to  the  intervening  air  ex- 
cept as  to  its  conducting  properties  (the 
same  as  electricity  depends  on  the  char- 
acter of  its  conducting  medium),  acting, 
at  their  arrival,  first  on  the  sensitive  unison 
air-column  which  fills  the  resonant  cham- 
ber, and  which,  being  so  exceedingly  mo- 
bile, will  of  course  first  respond  by  sym- 
pathetic action,  which  is  instantly  com- 
municated to  the  surrounding  case,  and, 
through  it,  to  the  prongs  of  the  fork. 

One  of  the  most  fatal  and  mischievous 
errors,  and  one  which  has  tended,  per- 
haps, more  than  any  other  to  keep  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  in  existence,  is  the 
assumption,  that,  because  an  inclosed  air- 
column,  a singing  flame,  or  a stretched 
membrane,  will  stir  at  a distance  from  an 
actuating  instrument  of  the  same  pitch 
the  intervening  mass  of  air  throughout  the 
whole  distance  must  therefore  be  thrown  into 
vibratory  motion.  This  fallacy  led  to  the 
invention  of  an  all-pervading  luminiferous 
ether , to  account  for,  or  rather  provide  for, 
the  undulatory  theory  of  light.  This  hy- 
pothetic ether  is  supposed  to  fill  all  inter- 
stellar space,  the  entire  mass  of  which 
must,  of  course,  be  thrown  into  waves,  and 
must  continue  perpetually  to  vibrate  by 
the  light  of  one  single  star, which,  of  course, 
shines  through  it  in  all  directions;  while 
millions  of  other  stars  also  shining  through 
the  same  mass  in  all  directions  must  neces- 
sarily produce  millions  of  independent  co- 
existing and  conflicting  systems  of  waves 


within  the  same  mass  of  ether  at  the  same 
instant!  Thus,  taking  any  single  cubic 
inch  of  interstellar  space  you  choose  to 
select,  the  ether  which  it  contains  must 
be  actually  oscillating  with  a million  differ- 
ent systems  of  waves,  from  a million  differ- 
ent stars,  while  these  millions  of  diverse 
and  conflicting  motions  of  the  same  ether 
are  carried  on  harmoniously  at  the  same 
instant  and  without  the  least  disturbance 
of  each  other,  according  to  this  consistent 
and  highly  scientific  hypothesis  of  wave- 
motion ! Yet  the  same  authorities  tell  us 
that  two  systems  of  aerial  or  ethereal  waves 
“ interfering ” will  completely  neutralize 
and  destroy  each  other! 

Having  seen  how  a unison  air-column 
can  resound  by  means  of  synchronous  but 
substantial  pulses  dashing  against  it,  let 
us  revert  again  for  a moment  to  the 
sounding-board,  whose  principle  of  reso- 
nance, as  before  intimated,  is  entirely 
different,  and  try  to  learn  how  the  sound 
of  a fork  is  augmented  by  its  stem  simply 
being  held  in  contact  with  the  wood,  if  it 
is  not  caused  by  the  augmentation  of  air- 
waves, as  the  undulatory  theory  supposes 
it  to  be. 

The  fundamental  laws  of  conduction 
and  radiation,  lying  at  the  bottom  of  this 
and  all  analogous  phenomena,  such  as 
those  of  Heat,  Light,  Electricity,  Magnet- 
ism, &c.,  are  not  understood,  and  probably 
never  will  be  by  man.  It  is  only  by  the 
analogies  of  the  so-called  forces,  elements, 
and  modes  of  motion,  that  we  can  arrive 
at  any  definite  or  satisfactory  conclusion 
on  the  subject.  We  definitely  know,  how- 
ever, from  the  best  of  analogical  reasons, 
that  the  resonance  of  a sounding-board 
can  be  nothing  but  the  simplest  radiation 
of  sonorous  substance,  the  same  as  heat  is 
radiated  in  larger  quantities  from  a more 
extended  surface  or  from  one  of  a better 
radiating  material.  No  one  pretends  to 


102 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


believe  that  heat  radiates  or  diffuses  itself 
through  a room  from  a metallic  surface 
by  means  of  augmented  air-waves  driven 
off,  though  the  atmosphere  may  tremble, 
and  no  doubt  does,  from  the  effects  of 
such  radiating  heat.  But  as  some  kind  of 
an  undulatory  motion  seemed  to  be  neces- 
sary for  heat,  in  order  to  keep  up  its  com- 
plex analogy  with  sound-waves  and  light- 
waves, that  “all-pervading”  ether  (which 
has  no  existence  in  fact,  but  which  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  describes  as  resembling 
“jelly,”)  has  recently  been  pressed  into 
service,  and  now,  instead  of  heat  being  a 
common-sense  substance,  as  simple  as 
odor  or  the  atmosphere  itself,  it  is  con- 
verted into  a certain  mode  of  motion  of 
this  gelatinous  ether,  another  substance  in- 
finitely more  difficult  to  believe  in  than 
the  substantial  nature  of  the  very  thing  it 
is  intended  to  explain.  Thus,  science, 
“falsely  so-called,”  instead  of  simplifying 
the  problems  of  Nature,  and  bringing  to 
light  her  hidden  mysteries,  seems  to  com- 
plicate and  confuse  every  phenomenon  it 
touches. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a cubic  inch  of 
iron  at  a permanently  red-hot  tempera- 
ture, placed  in  the  middle  of  a room 
twenty  feet  square,  on  a cold  day,  its  effect 
would  scarcely  be  sensible  a short  distance 
from  it;  yet,  if  the  same  quantity  of  iron 
were  spread  out  into  a sheet  thin  enough 
to  cover  the  floor  of  the  room,  and  could 
be  kept  at  the  same  temperature,  the  diffu- 
sion of  heat  would  be  so  intense,  owing  to 
the  greater  radiating  surface,  that  no  one 
could  live  in  the  room  for  a single  minute. 
Place  the  same  cubic  inch  of  permanently 
red-hot  iron  in  contact  with  a sheet  of 
copper,  and  its  heat  would  be  rapidly  dif- 
fused over  the  surface  of  the  sheet,  and 
from  it  radiated  in  augmented  warmth 
throughout  the  room.  This  cubic  inch  of 
iron  represents  the  tuning-fork,  while  the 


sheet  of  copper  answers  for  its  sounding- 
board.  Although  the  heat  radiates  with 
augmented  rapidity  from  its  more  extended 
surface,  and  owing  to  its  peculiar  molecu- 
lar structure,  yet  it  requires  no  vibratory 
motion  of  the  copper  whatever  to  cause 
this  increased  radiation.  A sheet  of  iron 
in  lieu  of  the  copper  would  prove  a poorer 
sounding-board  for  radiating  the  heat,  be- 
cause, being  a poorer  material  for  the  pur- 
pose, the  heat  would  not  spread  with  the 
same  facility  over  its  surface  as  over  that 
of  the  copper,  consequently  we  would  feel 
less  warmth  in  the  room. 

All  these  facts  in  regard  to  the  radiation 
and  diffusion  of  heat  are  instructive  as 
analogies  of  the  radiation  of  sound;  and, 
though  governed  by  different  laws  in  some 
respects,  yet  the  general  principle  of  the 
two  operations  is  the  same.  On  the  quality 
of  the  radiator  and  the  extent  of  its  surface 
in  the  two  phenomena  depends  the  amount 
of  diffusion  both  of  sound  and  of  heat ; and 
in  neither  case  does  this  augmentation 
depend  in  the  slightest  degree  on  the  mo- 
tion communicated  to  the  radiating  sur- 
faces, and  thence  to  the  air,  whatever  con- 
tingent vibration  either  may  incidentally 
produce. 

The  same  law  of  radiation  in  propor- 
tion to  surface  holds  good  with  reference 
to  odor.  A quantity  of  musk  would  not 
diffuse  itself  and  fill  a room  with  its  pecu- 
liar fragrance  as  rapidly  if  in  the  form  of 
a ball  as  if  it  were  spread  out  over  a large 
radiating  surface ; and  even  then  the  char- 
acter or  quality  of  the  surface  on  which 
it  was  spread  would  have  something  to  do 
with  it.  The  warm  surface  of  a board 
would  radiate  the  fragrance  with  much 
greater  intensity  than  a sheet  of  ice.  The 
diffusive  and  radiative  action  of  odor  is 
almost  exactly  the  same  in  these  respects 
as  those  of  sound  and  heat,  yet  no  one 
thinks  of  making  odor  anything  but  sub- 


CuAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


103 


stantial  emissions;  and  I have  yet  to  learn 
that  cither  Helmholtz  or  Tyndall  has  ever 
gone  so  far  in  their  mystification  of  Na- 
ture’s phenomena  as  to  attribute  the  diffu- 
sion and  radiation  of  a certain  fragrance 
to  the  oscillatory  petaliferous  tremors  of 
the  rose  and  honeysuckle ! They,  in  fact, 
find  no  difficulty  whatever  in  accepting 
the  proposition  that  a substance  consti- 
tuted of  real  atoms  in  the  form  of  musk 
can  diffuse  and  propagate  itself  by  an  un- 
known law  from  particle  to  particle  of  the 
atmosphere,  and  thus  project  its  rays  of 
substantial  fragrance  over  acres  of  still  air 
in  a few  minutes  without  any  kind  of  un- 
dulatory  motion  or  air-waves  whatever. 
Yet,  like  sound,  this  substantial  emanation 
must  have  a suitable  conducting  medium 
or  it  will  not  travel  at  all.  Place  a grain 
of  musk  under  an  exhausted  receiver,  and 
no  odor  would  radiate  to  fill  the  vacuum. 
So,  also,  place  a bell  within  the  same  re- 
ceiver, and  cause  it  to  strike  by  suitable 
mechanism,  and  no  sound  emerges  from 
this  region  of  vacuo.  The  sonorous  atoms 
generated  by  the  vibrations  of  the  bell,  as 
well  as  the  odorous  atoms  generated  by 
the  musk,  fall  powerless  for  want  of  a con- 
ductor. The  substantial  atoms  of  elec- 
tricity will  not  travel  without  a conducting 
medium,  neither  will  those  of  sound  or 
odor.  Yet,  evidently,  they  are  equally 
substantial. 

Although  electric  discharges  are  gen- 
erated by  the  chemical  action  of  the  acids 
upon  the  zinc  in  the  battery,  and  notwith- 
standing this  chemical  process  may,  and 
no  doubt  does,  cause  a degree  of  tremu- 
lous action  among  the  molecules  of  the 
metal  and  of  the  liquid  while  generating 
and  releasing  this  wondrous  substantial 
element  called  electricity,  yet  no  one 
would  be  so  weak  as  to  suppose  that  this 
tremor  actually  “sends”  off  these  electric 
pulses  at  the  enormous  velocity  of  thou- 


sands of  miles  a second,  much  less  that 
they  are  propagated  by  means  of  air-waves 
or  wire-waves  “moulded”  and  “carved” 
by  this  tremulous  motion  of  the  zinc  or 
this  effervescing  action  of  the  acid!  No! 
chemists  and  physicists  have  more  reason  . 
and  logic  when  they  come  to  treat  on  the 
generation  and  propagation  of  electric 
pulses,  and  at  once  concede  that  although 
the  electricity  is  generated  and  liberated 
by  the  molecular  tremor  of  the  zinc  and 
the  effervescing  action  of  the  acid,  yet  its 
propagation  through  a wire  depends  on  an 
unknown  law  of  conduction  peculiar  to 
that  particular  substance, without  bringing 
into  the  solution  either  ethereal , aerial , or 
metal  undulations.  Yet,  whenever  they 
change  to  the  production  of  sound-pulses, 
which  are  generated  by  an  almost  similar 
kind  of  molecular  tremor,  and  propagated 
by  a similar  unknown  law,  they  at  once 
become  mere  children  in  the  superficiality 
of  their  logic,  ignoring  all  ideas  of  the  pos- 
sible radiation  of  substantial  pulses  of 
sound  by  a law  of  conduction  peculiar  to 
that  particular  kind  of  substance  the  samr 
as  electric  pulses  travel;  but,  trampling 
under  foot  all  analogical  propriety  and 
consistency,  conclude  that  these  sonorous 
discharges  are  literally  driven  off  as  air- 
waves, or  iron-waves  as  the  case  may  be, 
the  entire  distance  they  are  propagated 
by  the  actual  motion  or  tremor  of  the 
sounding  body,  though  the  slightest  ob- 
servation would  have  convinced  them  that 
the  pulses  start  with  a velocity  nineteen  hun- 
dred times  greater  than  that  of  the  move- 
ment of  the  instrument  which  is  supposed 
to  “send  ” them ! 

I now  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  a 
sonorous  problem  second  in  importance 
to  no  other  question  connected  with  the 
present  discussion, — a question  involving 
phenomena  which  are  looked  upon  by 
physicists,  and  especially  by  all  writers  on 


io4 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sound,  as  among  the  most  conclusive 
proofs  that  sound  is  propagated  by  means 
of  air-waves  constituted  of  “condensations 
and  rarefactions.” 

I refer  to  the  well-known  and  univer- 
sally observed  effects  of  magazine  explo- 
sions in  the  breaking  of  windows  at  a dis- 
tance,— sometimes  even  miles  away  from 
the  source  of  the  atmospheric  concussion. 
As  strange  as  it  may  appear  to  the  reader, 
it  is  absolutely  taken  for  granted  by  all 
physicists  that  the  concussive  shock  or 
condensed  atmospheric  wave  which 
crushes  in  windows  and  sometimes  even 
houses,  is  the  same  as  the  sound-pulse 
generated  at  the  instant  of  the  explosion, 
no  distinction  whatever  being  even  dreamt 
of  between  such  sound  and  such  condensed 
wave  of  air!  Yes,  surprising  as  it  will  ap- 
pear before  we  get  through  with  this  ex- 
amination,not  one  writer  on  sound, among 
these  greatest  scientific  investigators  of  the 
world,  has  been  able  to  see  the  least  differ- 
ence between  the  sound  of  such  an  explo- 
sion and  its  concussive-  shock,  which  would 
knock  a man  lifeless  to  the  ground  if  stand- 
ing near  the  magazine!  That  such  careful 
thinkers  should  be  totally  ignorant  (I  use 
the  word  ignorant  with  due  respect,  but  at 
the  same  time  mean  it,)  of  any  distinction 
between  the  two  phenomena,  but  should 
employ  them  in  their  descriptions  of  such 
events  interchangeably,  as  meaning  one 
and  the  same  thing,  is  among  the  most 
startling  facts  connected  with  the  investi- 
gations of  modern  science. 

The  subject  is  therefore  of  so  much  im- 
portance that  I shall  be  obliged  to  devote 
several  pages  to  its  discussion,  in  which  I 
propose  to  show,  not  only  that  all  scien- 
tific writers  upon  this  subject  so  far  are 
mistaken,  but  that  the  explosions  of  mag- 
azines furnish  one  of  the  most  conclusive 
and  unanswerable  arguments  against  the 
atmospheric  wave-theory  of  sound  which 


could  be  desired.  If  the  advocates  of  the 
wave-hypothesis  should  thus  be  obliged  to 
look  on  and  see  their  most  important 
weapon  wrenched  from  their  hands  and 
fatally  turned  against  them,  surely  they 
will  begin  to  consider  their  theory  as  be- 
coming hopelessly  involved. 

I now  call  attention  to  the  fact,  which 
appears  never  to  have  entered  the  minds 
of  these  astute  writers,  that  at  the  explo- 
sion of  a magazine  thousands  and  possibly 
tens  of  thousands  of  cubic  yards  of  gas 
are  instantly  generated  and  added  to  the 
air,  which  necessarily,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  accompanying  sound  at  all, 
shove  away  the  circumambient  atmosphere 
in  all  directions  ; and,  in  doing  so,  naturally 
and  unavoidably  condense  its  particles, 
thus  forming  an  intensely  compressed  air- 
wave, which  is  driven  away  at  an  enormous 
velocity,  producing  the  agitation  and  con- 
cussion at  a distance  which  break  windows, 
as  so  often  witnessed.  These  great  inves- 
tigators of  natural  phenomena  have  never  , 
thought  of  the  least  difference  between  an 
effect  thus  produced,  where  a mountain  of 
gas  is  instantaneously  added  to  the  air, 
and  that  of  a sound  perhaps  equally  as 
loud  caused  by  the  clashing  of  two  trains 
of  cars  together  or  the  falling  of  a building, 
in  which  nothing  is  added  to  the  bulk  of 
the  atmosphere!  No,  so  far  from  making 
this  manifest  distinction,  so  clearly  scien- 
tific, and  which,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  ex- 
plains the  whole  matter  at  the  expense  of 
the  very  theory  it  has  been  supposed  to 
favor,  these  sound-writers  speak  in  the 
most  unsophisticated  manner  of  windows 
being  crushed  in  by  a “sound-pulse”  sent 
off  from  a magazine  explosion,  ignoring 
entirely  the  distinction  I am  here  pointing- 
out. 

As  an  example  of  this  childish  super- 
ficiality, I will  quote  Professor  Tyndall's 
innocent  description  of  the  breaking  of 


Ciiap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


105 


windows  at  Eritli.  It  will  surely  amuse 
the  reader,  if  it  does  not  instruct  him : — 

“The  most  striking  example  of  this  inflection  of 
a sonorous  wave  that  I have  ever  seen,  was  ex- 
hibitecl  at  Erith  after  the  tremendous  explosion  of 
a powder  magazine  which  occurred  there  in  1864. 
The  village  of  Erith  was  some  miles  distant  from 
the  magazine,  but  in  nearly  all  cases  the  windows 
were  shattered ; and  it  was  noticeable  that  the 
windows  turned  away  from  the  origin  of  the  explo- 
sion suffered  almost  as  much  as  those  which  faced  it. 
[This  effect  is  simply  explained  by  the  tremendous 
shove  given  to  the  air,  causing  it  to  compress  around 
the  buildings  ecpially  on  all  sides.  Professor  Tyn- 
dall thinks  it  was  the  “sonorous  wave”  which  in- 
flected, and  doubled  its  two  ends  around  the  build- 
ing, thus  crushing  the  windows!]  Lead  sashes 
were  employed  in  Erith  church,  and  these  being 
in  some  degree  flexible,  enabled  the  windows  to 
yield  to  the  pressure  without  much  fracture  of  the 
glass.  Every  window  in  the  church,  front  and 
back,  was  bent  inwards.  In  fact,  as  the  sound-wave 
reached  the  church  it  separated  right  and  left,  and 
for  a moment  the  edifice  was  clasped  by  a girdle  of 
intensely  compressed  air." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  23. 

The  reader  observes,  no  doubt  with 
some  degree  of  surprise,  that  no  distinc- 
tion is  even  hinted  at  in  the  above  citation 
between  the  “girdle  of  intensely  com- 
pressed air”  caused  by  the  cubic  acres  of 
added  gas,  and  the  “sound-wave”  which 
appeared  to  accompany  the  concussion ; 
but,  instead  of  this  manifest  discrimina- 
tion, the  two  are  used  interchangeably, — 
the  fallacy  of  which  will  now  be  made  ap- 
parent. 

First  of  all,  I here  make  an  announce- 
ment,— call  it  a prophecy,  if  you  like, — to 
which  I invite  the  attention  of  Professors 
Tyndall,  Mayer,  and  Helmholtz,  namely, 
that  the  condensed  air- wave  or  atmos- 
pheric concussion  which  breaks  a window; 
at  a distance  from  an  explosion  of  powder, 
will  be  found , when  tested , to  be  altogether  a 
diff erent  effect  from  the  sound  produced  by 
the.  same  explosion , and  that  it  will  also  be 
found  to  travel  at  a different  velocity , which 
velocity  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  quantity 


of  gas  added  and  the  distance  the  condensed 
wave  has  traveled!  If  this  prediction  shall 
ever  be  subjected  to  careful  scientific  ex- 
periment, which  can  be  easily  done  and  at 
trifling  expense,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
velocity  of  the  concussive  shock  as  com- 
pared to  the  velocity  of  the  sound  itself 
will  bear  the  following  relation:  For  a 
short  distance  from  the  explosion  (de- 
pending on  the  quantity  of  gas  added  to 
the  air)  the  condensed  air-wave  will  prob- 
ably travel  faster  than  the  sound  by  util- 
izing the  greater  spring-power  of  the  air 
at  the  start,  but  at  a long  distance  (say 
three  or  four  miles)  from  the  explosion 
the  sound  will  certainly  be  found  to  reach 
the  observer  first,  since  the  greater  expan- 
sion of  the  condensed  atmospheric  shell 
will  weaken  the  effect  of  its  elastic  spring 
and  decrease  the  velocity  of  the  concus- 
sive shock.  While  the  sound-pulse  (which 
is  a separate  and  independent  thing  from 
the  condensation  of  the  air  caused  by  the 
instantaneously  added  gas)  has  but  one 
uniform  rate  of  velocity  from  the  time  it 
starts  till  it  reaches  its  maximum  distance, 
the  speed  of  the  condensed  wave  of  air 
which  breaks  the  window  will  be  found  to 
be  at  its  maximum  at  the  start,  and  grad- 
ually to  travel  slower  and  slower  as  a 
larger  and  larger  circle  of  atmosphere  is 
embraced  within  the  wave,  till  finally  its 
velocity  must  entirely  die  out  with  its 
effect,  not  moving  probably  a foot  a sec- 
ond. And  while  the  audible  sound-pulse 
would  necessarily  be  limited  and  entirely 
die  out  within  a certain  distance,  there  is 
no  conceivable  limit  to  the  condensed  at- 
mospheric wave  but  the  upper  boundary 
of  the  aerial  ocean,  as  philosophy  must 
teach  us,  if  we  take  the  trouble  to  reflect, 
that  a single  cubic  yard  of  gas  added  to 
the  air  anywhere  would  so  act  on  its  elas- 
ticity and  expansibility  as  to  continue  the 
displacement  and  motion  to  its  upper  sur- 


io6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


face, — gradually,  as  before  observed,  be- 
coming weaker  and  weaker.  This  is  clearly 
taught  by  the  principle  of  the  conservation 
of  force,  the  displacement  of  matter,  and 
the  persistence  of  motion. 

It  is  entirely  different,  however,  in  case 
of  a sound  caused  by  a falling  tree,  for 
example,  which  does  not  add  a cubic  inch 
to  the  bulk  of  the  air,  though  its  report 
moves  off  with  the  same  velocity  exactly 
as  that  of  the  sound  of  an  explosion.  The 
atmosphere  is  merely  displaced  by  the 
moving  tree  from  in  front,  and  has  only 
to  pass  around  behind  the  trunk  and  fill 
the  partial  vacuum  caused  by  its  motion, 
thus  producing  by  its  mobility  (which  these 
sound-investigators  seem  almost  entirely 
to  ignore)  an  equilibrium,  without  prob- 
ably stirring  the  air  half  a dozen  rods  off. 
For  this  reason,  the  falling  of  a tree  or  of 
a building  produces  no  atmospheric  con- 
cussion outside  of  this  limited  agitation, 
though  the  sound  may  be  heard  for  miles 
away,  and  might  prove  even  equal  in  in- 
tensity to  that  of  an  explosion.  There 
being  no  large  amount  of  gas  or  other 
elastic  material  added  to  the  atmosphere 
by  the  falling  tree  there  is  no  shell  of  “in- 
tensely compressed  air"  driven  off  to  a dis- 
tance to  crush  windows, which  must  neces- 
sarily be  the  case  when  such  a body  of  gas 
is  instantly  generated,  compelling  the  air 
which  had  just  occupied  that  space  to 
move  off  at  great  velocity  in  all  directions. 
Yet,  clear  and  simple  as  this  exposition 
must  be  to  the  reader,  Professor  Tyndall, 
with  all  his  reputed  scientific  penetration, 
was  incapable  of  seeing  it,  and  hence  de- 
liberately mixed  up  this  “girdle  of  intensely 
compressed  air"  caused  by  the  added  gas, 
'with  the  sound-pulse , which,  let  it  be  ever 
so  intense,  is  not  capable  of  stirring  the 
lightest  feather  unless  tuned  to  oscillate 
in  unison  with  its  own  periodic  pulsations. 

But  I do  not  yet  propose  to  leave  this 


magazine  problem,  clear  as  it  is,  without 
further  elucidation.  I will  now  give  an 
illustration  of  the  distinction  here  pointed 
out  between  a sound-pulse  and  an  atmos- 
pheric concussion  caused  by  the  sudden 
addition  of  a large  quantity  of  gas,  which 
will  make  it  so  clear  that  a schoolboy  will 
be  able  to  comprehend  it,  though  I antici- 
pate more  difficulty  with  physicists  who 
are  not  capable  of  seeing  any  difference 
between  an  atmospheric  concussion  which 
breaks  windows  and  the  sound  generated 
by  the  same  explosion. 

We  will  figure  to  our  minds  a smooth 
tube,  say  a couple  of  miles  long,  having 
a closely  fitting  piston  in  one  end  and 
being  open  at  the  other.  It  is  evident,  if 
the  piston  should  be  suddenly  forced  into 
the  tube  a few  inches  it  will  create  a con- 
densation of  the  air  immediately  in  front 
of  it,  which,  not  being  able  to  escape  side- 
wise,  will  act  on  the  air  in  front  of  that, 
and  so  on  communicating  the  condensa- 
tion from  one  particle  of  air  to  another 
till  the  concussion  reaches  the  far  end  of 
the  tube,  where  it  would  demonstrate  it- 
self by  acting  on  a candle-flame  or  any 
sensitive  object,  whether  in  tune  or  not, 
such  as  a feather,  placed  at  the  outlet. 

This  sudden  shove  of  the  piston  is  ex- 
actly the  same  in  principle  as  the  sudden 
addition  of  a quantity  of  gas  to  the  sur- 
rounding atmosphere  by  an  explosion  of 
powder  or  nitro-glycerine.  If  the  piston 
is  moved  an  inch  into  the  tube,  it  will,  in 
effect,  add  one  inch  to  the  air  in  the  tube 
directly  in  front  of  the  piston,  which,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  must  shove  the  air  of  the 
tube  with  a force  equal  to  the  spring-power 
of  this  condensation,  and  will  not  cease 
with  its  shoving  process  till  its  effect 
reaches  the  open  air  at  the  far  end  of  the 
tube,  which  will  then,  and  not  till  then, 
establish  an  equilibrium  in  the  general 
atmosphere  outside  of  the  tube,  or  com- 


ClIAI*.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


107 


pensate  for  the  vacuum  produced  behind 
the  piston  in  giving  the  original  impulse. 
This  vacuum  is,  of  course,  instantly  and 
almost  completely  fdled  by  the  expansive 
tendency  of  the  surrounding  atmosphere 
near  it,  but  the  equilibrium  can  not  be 
said  to  be  fully  re-established  till  the  con- 
densation within  the  tube  has  traveled  the 
two  miles  and  has  been  added  to  the  bulk 
of  the  outside  air. 

Thus  far  it  is,  of  course,  plain  sailing, 
and  without  any  chance  for  controversy. 
But  right  here  begins  the  confusion  of 
physicists.  They  seem  to  think  if  the  pis- 
ton is  shoved  instantaneously  but  a single 
inch,  thus  in  effect  adding  one  inch  to  the 
air  of  the  tube  directly  in  front  of  it,  that 
such  a condensation  would  travel  through- 
out the  length  of  the  tube  with  the  same 
velocity  precisely  as  if  the  piston  had  been 
shoved  twelve  inches  or  twelve  feet  in  the 
same  instant  of  time , and  thus  added  as 
many  inches  or  feet  to  the  air  of  the  tube 
instead  of  a single  inch;  though  this  mani- 
festly can  not  be  the  case,  because  the 
spring-power  of  a twelve-inch  condensa- 
tion instantly  generated  must  be  vastly 
greater  on  the  column  of  air  in  front,  and 
must  drive  it  with  vastly  greater  velocity 
toward  the  outlet  of  the  tube,  notwith- 
standing the  compressibility  of  the  air, 
than  could  be  effected  by  a spring-power 
of  one  inch.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  so  self- 
evident  that  the  speed  of  the  concussive 
impulse  or  condensed  wave  along  the  tube 
must  bear  some  sort  of  proportion  to  this 
force  of  the  spring  or  quantity  of  air  in- 
stantly added  by  the  movement  of  the 
piston,  that  it  requires  no  argument  to 
prove  it;  and  I must  say  I fail  to  form  a 
very  favorable  estimate  of  a man’s  philo- 
sophical or  mechanical  perspicacity  who 
can  not  see  it,  or  who  takes  the  opposite 
view,  as  do  our  most  learned  savants.  So 
far  from  admitting  this,  as  I conceive, 


elementary  principle  of  physics,  they  ac- 
tually teach  the  principle  that  if  the  piston 
could  be  instantaneously  moved  a distance 
of  fifty  feet,  thus  compressing  this  quantity 
of  air  within  the  space  of  a single  inch 
or  even  less  (representing  the  condensed 
force  of  powder  before  its  explosion),  such 
an  expansive  spring-power  would  not 
shove  the  remainder  of  the  air  in  the  tube 
with  any  greater  velocity  than  if  the  piston 
had  moved  but  a quarter  of  an  inch,  hav- 
ing the  very  weak  spring-force  such  a 
trifling  condensation  would  have  pro- 
duced! This,  I admit,  is  a serious  charge 
to  make  against  the  greatest  scientists  of 
the  age;  but  I will  sustain  it  unequivo- 
cally not  only  from  the  record  but  by  the 
unavoidable  logic  of  their  explanation  of 
magazine  explosions,  in  making  them  con- 
form to  the  wave-theory.  Let  me  have 
the  reader’s  attention  for  a few  moments 
upon  this  single  point. 

In  the  first  place,  these  physicists  fully 
justify  my  charge  by  making  the  condensed 
wave  of  air  which  is  shoved  away  in  all 
directions  at  the  explosion  of  a magazine, 
identical  with  the  sound-pulse  which  the  same 
explosion  produces , without  any  reference 
to  the  amount  of  gas  added,  as  just  quoted 
fully  from  Professor  Tyndall,  with  which 
also  all  other  writers  on  the  subject  agree. 
I will  illustrate  this.  If  a single  barrel  of 
powder,  for  example,  should  be  exploded 
at  the  magazine,  the  sound  would,  of 
course,  be  heard,  and  the  concussive  shock 
felt,  at  the  distance  of  a mile  away.  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  says  this  sound-pulse  and 
this  condensed  air-wave  are  identical. 
Then,  if  one  thousand  barrels  of  powder, 
instead  of  a single  barrel,  should  be  ex- 
ploded at  the  same  place,  causing  one 
thousand  times  as  much  gas  and  spring- 
force  to  drive  the  air,  the  concussive  shock 
and  the  sound-pulse  heard  a mile  away  would 
still  be  identical , according  to  this  same 


io8 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


high  authority.  Now,  since  there  is  no 
appreciable  difference  between  the  ve- 
locity of  a loud  and  of  a feeble  sound,  as 
universal  observation  proves,  and  conse- 
quently no  difference  between  the  velocity 
of  the  sounds  of  the  two  explosions  just 
supposed,  it  is  clear  that  my  charge  is  sus- 
tained to  all  intents  and  purposes,  namely, 
that  the  logic  of  Professor  Tyndall  and  his 
collaborators  on  sound  teaches  that  the 
velocity  of  a condensed  wave  caused  by  the 
sudden  addition  of  air  or  gas  to  the  atmos- 
phere does  not  depend  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree on  the  quantity  of  air  or  gas  added, 
since  both  quantities  and  their  resultant 
condensations  in  the  two  explosions  are 
identical  with  their  accompanying  sound- 
pulses,  and  since  all  sounds  have  but  one 
uniform  velocity  in  air  of  the  same  tem- 
perature! Hence,  it  follows,  as  the  result 
of  this  reasoning,  that,  could  a piston  be 
instantaneously  pushed  into  our  supposed 
tube  a distance  of  ffty  feet,  producing  the 
same  effect  as  if  fifty  feet  of  additional 
air  were  instantly  introduced  in  front  of 
the  piston,  it  would  not  drive  the  con- 
densed wave  toward  the  far  end  of  the 
tube  with  any  greater  velocity  than  if  the 
piston  were  shoved  the  sixteenth  of  an  inch , 
since  all  condensed  waves  of  air  arc  identical 
with  sound,  and  all  sounds  have  the  same 
velocity!  There  can  be  no  escape  from 
this  conclusion,  grind  as  it  may  the  logic 
of  these  great  scientific  investigators,  as 
will  soon  be  demonstrated  by  the  very 
words  of  one  of  the  foremost  of  their 
number.  To  attempt  to  modify  it  in  the 
least  would  be  at  once  to  abandon  the 
identity  of  the  “sound-pulse”  and  the  con- 
densed air-wave  sent  off  from  a magazine 
explosion,  and  such  a modification  would 
be  the  simple  renouncement  of  the  entire 
wave-theory  of  sound. 

I have  already  explained  that  a con- 
densed wave  in  the  open  air,  driven  off  by 


the  explosion  of  a given  quantity  of  pow- 
der, dynamite,  or  nitro-glycerine,  would 
travel  at  its  greatest  velocity  at  the  start, 
its  speed  becoming  slower  and  slower  the 
larger  the  circle  of  atmosphere  embraced 
within  the  expanding  condensation.  Not 
so,  however,  with  the  condensed  wave  in 
our  supposed  tube.  As  the  wave  instantly 
generated  by  the  motion  of  the  piston  can 
not  expand  laterally,  like  the  condensation 
caused  by  a magazine  explosion,  but  must 
continue  on  in  the  same  direct  course, 
controlled  by  the  same  limits  of  the  sides 
of  the  tube  to  its  far  end,  it  must  seem 
evident  that  any  given  condensation 
caused  by  the  moving  piston  will  travel 
with  the  same  uniform  velocity  from  one 
end  to  the  other  of  the  tube.  If  the  added 
air,  or,  what  is  the  same,  if  the  movement 
of  the  piston  be  small,  the  spring-force  of 
the  condensation  thus  generated  will  be 
slight,  and  its  velocity  throughout  the  tube 
will  be  correspondingly  low;  but  if  the 
piston  should  move  suddenly  a larger  dis- 
tance the  spring-force  of  the  condensed 
wave  and  its  velocity  will  be  correspond- 
ingly increased,  though  in  both  cases  the 
velocity  will  probably  be  uniform,  or  at 
least  very  nearly  so,  from  the  start  to  the 
finish. 

In  assuming  this  condensed  wave  of  air 
resulting  from  an  explosion  (which  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  thing  as  that  in  the  tube, 
since  the  explosion  of  a little  powder  in 
front  of  the  piston  would  produce  the  same 
effect  exactly,)  to  be  identical  with  the 
sound-pulse,  as  all  physicists  are  compelled 
to  do  according  to  the  wave-theory,  they 
are  unavoidably  forced  to  assume,  as  al- 
ready demonstrated,  that  such  atmospheric 
condensations,  whether  large  or  small, 
must  travel  at  the  same  uniform  velocity, 
without  any  retardation  by  expansion  in 
the  open  air,  since  the  velocity  of  all  sounds 
is  exactly  the  same  whether  caused  by 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


109 


small  or  large  explosions.  The  final  result 
of  this  reasoning  is,  either  that  all  addi- 
tions of  gas  to  the  air  by  the  explosions  of 
powder,  whether  large  or  small  the  quan- 
tity— whether  a hundred  pounds  or  a mil- 
lion tons — must  drive  the  condensed  wave 
with  the  same  velocity,  or  else  such  con- 
densation is  not  identical  with  the  sound- 
pulse,  since  all  sounds,  as  every  one  ad- 
mits, travel  with  the  same  velocity!  This 
logical  sapping  and  mining  of  the  wave- 
theory  must  inevitably  result  in  the  sur- 
render of  the  citadel,  as  will  now  be 
seen. 

The  foregoing  being  the  unperverted 
and  undeniable  logic  of  physicists,  let  us 
for  a few  minutes  turn  to  the  record.  By 
reference  to  Appleton's  American  Encyclo- 
pedia and  its  elegantly  written  article  on 
“Sound,”  fortunately  within  the  reach  of 
all  students  desiring  to  investigate  the 
matter,  Professor  Mayer,  the  highest  au- 
thority on  sound  in  this  country  and  called 
by  many  the  Helmholtz  of  America,  makes 
use  of  this  very  illustration  of  the  tube 
with  a movable  piston  at  one  end,  and  ac- 
tually assumes  and  teaches  that  the  ve- 
locity of  the  atmospheric  condensation 
caused  by  a sudden  shove  of  the  piston 
must  necessarily  be  the  same  as  that  of 
sound,  or  must  of  necessity  travel  1090 
feet  in  a second  at  a temperature  of  32  de- 
grees Fahrenheit,  since  that  is  the  admitted 
velocity  of  sound.  As  surprising  as  it  may 
seem  to  the  unscientific  reader,  and  in  ex- 
act conformity  to  the  foregoing  argument, 
this  physicist  makes  no  distinction  what- 
ever in  the  velocity  of  the  condensed  wave 
thus  generated, whether  the  piston  is  moved 
one  inch  or  ten  feet,  so  the  movement  is 
instantaneous;  and  consequently  he  points 
out  no  difference  in  the  speed  of  such  a 
wave,  whether  the  spring-force  of  the  con- 
densation generated  by  the  piston’s  motion 
be  equal  to  a pressure  of  one  ounce  or  one 


thousand  pounds!  He  assumes  this  ve- 
locity of  the  condensed  wave  along  the 
tube  to  be  the  same  as  that  of  sound, — 
nothing  more  and  nothing  less, — and  hence 
it  must  be  the  same  necessarily,  whatever 
the  spring-force  employed  to  drive  it,  since 
the  velocity  of  sound  through  this  tube  at 
any  definite  temperature, as  already  shown, 
is  always  the  same! 

As  this  writer  fails  to  note  this  distinc- 
tion, but  rather  ignores  it,  the  same  as  did 
Professor  Tyndall  in  reference  to  the  mag- 
azine explosion  and  the  destruction  of  the 
windows  at  Erith  by  a “sound-wave,”  I am 
therefore  compelled,  as  I did  in  the  other 
case,  to  definitely  point  out  the  law  gov- 
erning the  transmission  both  of  the  sound 
and  of  the  atmospheric  condensation 
through  this  tube,  and  thus  indicate  the 
manifest  difference  between  them,  which 
science  and  its  exponents  so  far  have 
failed  to  do. 

Let  us  suppose  the  piston  to  be  moved 
instantaneously  into  the  tube  a certain 
distance  by  the  blow  of  a hammer,  which 
also  makes  a sharp  report  at  the  same 
time.  This  simultaneous  sound  of  the 
blow  and  atmospheric  wave  produced  by 
the  movement  of  the  piston  might  or  might 
not  travel  with  the  same  velocity  toward 
the  far  end  of  the  tube.  It  would,  of 
course,  depend  entirely  upon  the  distance 
the  piston  was  driven  by  the  blow  of  the 
hammer,  or,  in  other  words,  upon  the 
quantity  of  air  (in  effect)  thereby  added 
to  the  atmosphere  of  the  tube.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  a true  distance  for  the  piston  to 
suddenly  move  by  this  blow  might  be  ar- 
rived at  by  experiment  which  would  fur- 
nish just  enough  spring-force  to  carry  the 
condensed  wave  through  the  tube  with  a 
velocity  equal  to  but  not  exceeding  that 
of  the  sound-pulse  caused  by  the  same 
blow  of  the  hammer.  But  it  is  likewise 
evident  that  a distance  might  be  selected 


I IO 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


for  the  piston  to  move  (say  one  sixteenth  of 
an  inch)  which  would  produce  so  little 
compression  of  the  air  in  front  as  to  cause 
the  condensed  wave  to  lag  behind,  and 
possibly  not  travel  one  tenth  as  fast  as  the 
sound  of  the  hammer.  In  this  case,  how- 
ever, the  condensation, as  before  remarked, 
would  probably  travel  through  the  tube  at 
a uniform  velocity  from  end  to  end,  though 
the  sound  would  vastly  outstrip  it.  The 
speed  of  so  slight  a condensation  would 
resemble  that  of  a condensed  wave  from 
a magazine  explosion  when  it  had  nearly 
spent  itself  by  expansion  and  rarefaction, 
as  already  explained.  And,  finally,  it  is 
evident  that  a distance  could  be  deter- 
mined for  the  piston  to  move  (say  ten, 
twenty,  or  forty  feet,)  simultaneously  with 
the  blow  of  the  hammer, provided  it  could 
be  instantaneous,  which  would  add  suffi- 
cient spring-force  to  carry  the  condensed 
wave  with  a velocity  twice  or  even  three 
times  that  of  sound.  Is  not  this  simple 
and  clear?  Yet  these  palpable  and  mani- 
fest distinctions,  lying  at  the  very  basis  of 
pneumatics  and  acoustics,  as  any  analytical 
mind  must  perceive,  have  never  entered 
the  thoughts  of  these  great  physicists. 
Why?  The  answer  is  plain.  Simply  be- 
cause the  universally  accepted  wave-theory 
of  sound  is  obliged  to  lay  down  as  its  fun- 
damental principle  that  a sound-pulse  of 
any  kind  consists  in  and  is  propagated  by 
means  of  a condensation  of  the  air,  and  can 
only  travel  as  such  compressed  atmos- 
pheric pulse.  Hence,  after  starting  out 
with  this  fallacy,  it  became  necessary,  in 
order  to  harmonize  natural  phenomena,  to 
compel  all  kinds  of  atmospheric  conden- 
sations to  conform  to  this  law,  and  thus  to 
travel  at  the  observed  velocity  of  sound ! 

1 As  physicists  were  unable  to  separate  the 
concussive  shock  of  a magazine  explosion 
from  its  sound-report,  but  must  suppose 
the  two  necessarily  to  be  one  and  the  same 


thing,  according  to  this  wave-hypothesis, 
it  is  asking  altogether  too  much  of  them 
now  to  distinguish  between  the  velocity  of 
a condensed  wave  in  a tube  and  its  accom- 
panying sound  derived  simultaneously  from 
the  blow  of  a hammer ! It  is  owing  entirely 
to  the  blinding  effect  of  this  all-pervading 
fallacy  of  atmospheric  sound-waves  having 
“condensations  and  rarefactions,”  gener- 
ating thereby  “heat,”  and  thus  adding 
“one  sixth”  to  the  elasticity  of  the  air 
and  the  velocity  of  sound,  that  we  see 
Professor  Tyndall  deliberately  and  almost 
pitiably  jumbling  a “sound-wave”  or  a 
“sonorous  pulse”  with  the  “girdle  of  in- 
tensely compressed  air”  which  crushed  in 
the  windows  at  Eritli!  And  it  is  owing  to 
the  same  reason  that  we  see  Professor 
Mayer,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  intellects 
of  America,  laying  down  his  law  that  the 
velocity  of  a condensed  wave  in  a tube, 
caused  by  the  sudden  shove  of  a piston, 
must  necessarily  be  1090  feet  a second, 
or,  in  other  words,  must  conform  to  the 
observed  velocity  of  sound,  without  the 
least  regard  to  the  amount  of  conden- 
sation the  piston  produced,  or  the  force 
thus  brought  to  bear  in  propelling  the 
wave ! 

I will  now  quote  Professor  Mayer’s  own 
words  from  the  Encyclopedia,  that  their 
clearly  erroneous  character  may  be  mani- 
fest to  the  reader: — 

“If  air  were  incompressible , a motion  produced 
at  any  point  of  its  mass  would  instantaneously  be 
transmitted  to  every  other  point  of  the  atmosphere .” 

Then,  to  show  what  he  means  by  the 
transmission  of  this  “ motion"  “to  every 
other  point  of  the  atmosphere,”  he  con- 
tinues, without  break,  to  use  the  illustra- 
tion of  the  tube,  of  which  I have  spoken: — 

“Thus,  if  we  imagine  a tube  open  at  one  end 
and  closed  at  the  other  by  a piston  that  moves  in 
the  tube  without  friction,  it  is  evident  that  if  this 
piston  were  pushed  into  the  tube  a certain  distance 


Chai>.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


1 1 1 


the  air  would  at  the  same  time  move  out  of  the  tube 
at  the  open  end.  [That  is,  on  the  supposition,  as 
above,  that  the  air  was  “ incompressible.  "J  But 
air  is  compressible  and  elastic , and  aftei  the  piston 
has  been  pushed  into  the  cylinder,  a measurable 
interval  of  time  will  have  elapsed  before  the  air 
would  move  out  of  the  open  end  of  the  tube.  This 
interval  is  the  time  taken  by  sound  to  travel  the 
length  of  the  tube.” 

He  thus  not  only  confirms  what  I have 
already  said,  that  the  condensed  wave 
caused  by  pushing  the  piston  into  the  tube 
must  necessarily  travel,  according  to  the 
wave-theory,  with  the  velocity  of  sound, 
whether  it  be  accompanied  by  sound  or 
not,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  amount 
or  force  of  this  condensation  or  the  dis- 
tance the  piston  is  instantaneously  moved, 
but  he  also  teaches  the  enormous  and  self- 
evident  error  that  “if  air  were  incompress- 
ible a tnotion  at  any  point  of  its  mass  would 
instantaneously  be  transmitted  to  every  other 
point  of  the  atmosphere which  “motion” 
he  immediately  explains  to  be  the  absolute 
displacement  of  the  entire  atmosphere  to 
the  extent  of  the  movement!  This  he 
manifestly  means  to  teach  by  his  illustra- 
tion of  the  tube,  out  of  which  the  air  would 
instantly  rush  as  the  piston  was  pushed 
into  the  other  end,  supposing  the  air  to  be 
incompressible,  and  to  the  exact  amount 
of  the  piston’s  movement.  A more  erro- 
neous inculcation  than  this  can  not  be 
imagined,  as  I will  now  show. 

As  recently  remarked,  he  here  ignores 
in  toto  the  mobility  of  the  air,  and  overlooks 
one  of  the  plainest  principles  in  science, 
that  even  if  the  atmosphere  were  wholly 
“incompressible”  it  still  might  possess  ex- 
treme mobility , and  thus  compensate  for 
any  “motion,”  and  neutralize  its  effect  by 
its  disturbed  portion  moving  around  the 
disturbing  body  and  thus  establishing  an 
equilibrium,  without  the  motion  being 
transmitted  more  than  a few  inches  from 
the  center  of  disturbance.  Instead  of  rec- 


ognizing this  elementary  fact  of  science, 
he  makes  no  reckoning  of  this  principle  of 
mobility  at  all,  and  teaches  that  if  the  air 
was  incompressible,  a fly,  by  moving  its 
wings  and  thus  stirring  the  atmosphere, 
would  actually  continue  the  same  displace- 
ment “ to  every  other  point  of  the  atmos- 
phere,” even  carrying  this  same  motion 
around  the  earth,  just  as  the  air  would 
move  out  of  the  tube  by  the  motion  of  the 
piston ! 

Now,  we  have  just  such  an  element  as 
he  supposes  in  water , which  is  practically 
incompressible  though  possessing  the  same 
mobility  in  proportion  to  its  density  as  the 
atmosphere.  Hence,  if  we  had  an  inex- 
pansible  tube  two  miles  long  filled  with 
water  free  from  air,  a piston  pushed  into 
one  end  would  cause  the  water  to  pass  out 
at  the  other  end  at  the  same  time.  Why? 
Because,  in  the  first  place,  being  incom- 
pressible its  particles  can  not  squeeze  to- 
gether; and,  secondly,  its  mobility  can  not 
be  made  available  to  counteract  this  mo- 
tion, or  to  compensate  for  the  displace- 
ment, owing  to  its  confinement  by  the 
sides  of  the  tube.  But  supposing  the  tube 
were  not  there,  and  the  same  disturbance 
of  the  water  should  take  place  in  the  open 
ocean  by  pushing  the  same  sized  piston 
through  it  the  same  distance,  this  authori- 
tative writer  teaches,  if  his  words  have 
any  meaning  at  all,  that  this  motion 
“would  instantaneously  be  transmitted  to 
every  other  point  of  the” ocean, displacing 
every  particle  of  its  millions  of  cubic  miles 
of  water  to  the  full  extent,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, of  this  piston  movement,  just  as  truly 
and  literally  as  that  the  same  quantity  of 
water  would  be  forced  out  of  the  end  of 
the  supposed  tube!  There  is  no  possible 
escape  from  this  conclusion,  since  the 
water  is  practically  incompressible,  and 
its  tnobility  is  not  named  or  so  much  as 
hinted  by  this  physicist.  I doubt  if  he 


I 12 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


even  thought  of  it,  or  he  surely  would  have 
detected  the  fallacy  of  his  teaching,  and 
not  have  placed  on  record,  to  stand  for- 
ever, such  an  unmitigated  philosophical 
blunder. 

And  here  we  are  compelled  to  note  the 
surprising  fact,  that,  while  these  writers 
on  sound  are  constantly  calling  our  at.en- 
tion  to  the  “elasticity,”  “density,”  and 
“compressibility”  of  the  air, and  its  conse- 
quent spring-power  in  conveying  a pulse 
or  atmospheric  condensation  with  great 
velocity  to  a distance,  they  never  even 
name  the  mobility  of  the  air,  one  of  its 
most  important  and  persistent  character- 
istics! Is  there  any  meaning  in  this  as- 
tonishing fact,  or  any  way  of  accounting 
for  such  a remarkable  oversight  in  scien- 
tific writers?  I will  not  say  it  is  an  inten- 
tional suppression  of  a well-known  scien- 
tific fact,  but  when  we  come  to  consider 
that  should  the  mobility  of  the  air  be  recog- 
nized in  their  arguments  on  wave-motion, 
it  would  in  every  instance  overthrow  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  the  coincidence  be- 
comes at  once  startling  and  suggestive! 
When  these  physicists  are  engaged  in  con- 
structing their  beautiful  mathematical  hy- 
pothesis of  a sound-pulse  causing  a “con- 
densation” of  the  air,  which  generates /for? 
enough  to  add  “one  sixth”  to  the  velocity 
of  the  sound,  and  which,  owing  to  the 
spring-power  of  the  air  resulting  from  its 
compressibility  and  elasticity , is  driven  from 
mass  to  mass  of  the  atmosphere  at  a ve- 
locity of  1120  feet  a second,  all  by  the 
trifling  aggregate  movement  of  a tuning- 
fork’s  prongs  seven  inches  in  a second , they 
seem  to  shut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  if 
the  air  possesses  any  mobility  at  all,  or  the 
least  tendency  to  get  out  of  the  way  of  the 
advancing  prong  and  move  around  behind 
it,  the  continuation  of  this  supposed  “pulse” 
or  “condensation  ” a single  inch  beyond 
the  travel  of  the  prong  is  utterly  impossible. 


It  is  therefore  clearly  manifest  that  this 
principle  of  atmospheric  mobility  or  this 
tendency  of  the  air  to  move  aside  as  an 
object  is  passing  through  it,  even  if  its 
density  and  mechanical  viscosity  were 
equal  to  those  of  mercury,  completely 
nullifies  the  hypothesis  of  an  air-pulse  or 
condensed  wave  being  continued  a single 
foot  in  advance  of  any  object,  if  even 
moving  as  swiftly  as  a bullet  when  fired 
from  a rifle,  which  travels  at  least  2,000 
times  swifter  than  the  prong  of  a tuning- 
fork!  If  the  air  did  not  possess  the  prin- 
ciple of  mobility , or,  in  other  words,  could 
not  get  out  of  the  way  of  a body  passing 
through  it  and  thus  pass  around  behind, 
then  the  pulse  must  necessarily  continue 
on  in  a direct  line  in  advance  of  a fork’s 
prong  the  same  as  in  our  supposed  tube, 
moving  at  a velocity  corresponding  to  the 
velocity  of  the  impelling  body,  as  before 
illustrated.  But  the  mobility  of  the  air, 
which  the  wave-theory  wisely  and  neces- 
sarily ignores,  alone  counteracts  and  neu- 
tralizes this  supposed  tendency  of  a pulse 
or  condensation  to  travel  any  distance  in 
free  air  driven  by  a body  moving  through 
it  at  whatever  velocity. 

The  fact  that  any  physicist  claiming  to 
think  or  reason,  knowing  of  the  mobility  of 
the  air  and  its  perfect  freedom  to  escape 
sidewise  when  disturbed  by  a moving  body, 
should  have  ever  taught,  except  as  a huge 
scientific  joke,  that  condensed  air-waves 
are  actually  driven  off  at  a velocity  of  1120 
feet  a second  in  advance  of  the  prong  of  a 
tuning-fork  moving  but  seven  inches  in  a 
second,  must  prove  a source  of  almost  in- 
finite amusement  to  scientific  investigators 
of  the  not  very  distant  future;  while  the 
very  writers,  I doubt  not,  who  now  advo- 
cate these  infinite  impossibilities  will  them- 
selves be  the  first  to  laugh  at  their  unpar- 
alleled absurdity  as  soon  as  the  question 
is  once  fairly  brought  to  their  attention. 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


”3 


. So  far,  then,  from  the  position  of  Pro- 
fessor Mayer  being  correct  in  regard  to 
the  instantaneous  transmission  of  a dis- 
turbance to  all  parts  of  an  “ incompressible 
body,  it  turns  out  to  be  exactly  the  reverse, 
as  was  seen  in  the  analysis  of  the  motion 
of  a violin-string,  and  the  enormous  blun- 
der of  Professor  Helmholtz.  If  the  air 
were  really  incompressible,  while  at  the  same 
time  possessing  mobility,  as  seen  in  the  case 
of  water,  this  very  condition  would  prevent 
such  transmission  instead  of  encourage  it! 
But  with  the  atmosphere  compressible,  as 
we  know  it  to  be,  let  a movement  take 
place  in  the  midst  of  the  aerial  ocean,  and 
this  very  principle  of  compressibility  will 
permit  the  disturbance  to  extend  around 
for  some  distance,  as  seen  in  the  move- 
ment of  a fan  in  a still  room,  into  which 
smoke  has  been  admitted  to  visualize  the 
motion;  whereas,  if  the  air  were  practically 
“incompressible,”  as  in  Professor  Mayer’s 
supposition,  the  same  as  water,  the  dis- 
turbance would  be  rigidly  confined  to  the 
moving  body,  while  the  mobility  of  the  air 
would  continually  come  into  play  to  re- 
establish equilibrium. 

I have  thus  far  spoken  of  water  as  prac- 
tically incompressible,  which  it  is  so  far  as 
any  ordinary  motion  producing  an  appre- 
ciable effect  is  concerned,  since  its  utmost 
compressibility  which  mechanics  has  been 
able  to  demonstrate,  amounts  to  but  one 
part  in  22,000  for  each  atmosphere,  or 
fifteen  pounds  pressure  to  the  square  inch. 
It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  mobility  of 
a body  in  no  way  depends  upon  or  is  re- 
lated to  its  compressibility,  since  mercury 
is  just  as  mobile  as  water, while  it  possesses 
but  one  twentieth  the  compressibility,  or  but 
one  part  in  440,000  for  each  atmosphere. 
Even  the  mobility  of  atmospheric  air  itself 
does  not  exceed  that  of  quicksilver,  though 
the  air  is  the  most  compressible  of  all  cor- 
poreal substances,  since  it  is  susceptible 


of  reduction  in  bulk  by  pressure  till  it  con- 
tains 770  atmospheres,  when  its  density, 
which  would  be  equivalent  to  its  weight, 
would  exactly  equal  that  of  water  at  sixty 
degrees  Fahrenheit.  We  thus  see  that  a 
fluid  might  be  assumed  to  be  absolutely 
incompressible  and  yet  retain  the  highest 
degree  of  mobility,  which  completely 
annihilates  the  argument  of  Professor 
Mayer. 

A little  reflection  must  teach  us  that,  if 
we  suppose  the  air  to  be  really  “incom- 
pressible,” a motion  would  have  to  be 
sufficiently  powerful  to  displace  the  entire 
atmosphere  with  its  millions  of  tons  weight 
in  order  to  instantaneously  effect  this 
transmission  of  “motion”  to  its  extreme 
limits,  as  Professor  Mayer  asserts!  To 
illustrate  it,  suppose  the  experiment  to  be 
tried  with  water.  According  to  the  teach- 
ing of  this  savant  (and  it  is  impossible  for 
his  language  to  be  misunderstood),  if  a 
moneron  should  move  its  body  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  ocean,  four  miles  below  its 
surface,  supposing  the  water  to  be  incom- 
pressible, or  should  thrust  out  one  of  its 
pseudopodia,  the  mobility  of  the  water  di- 
rectly around  this  little  creature  counts 
for  nothing  at  all  in  the  scientific  estima- 
tion of  this  physicist,  since  he  wholly  ig- 
nores it;  but  in  lieu  of  this,  he  tell  us  the 
“motion”  would  absolutely  be  “transmitted 
to  every  other  point  of  the”  ocean,  ox,  in  other 
words,  the  entire  ocean  would  be  displaced 
bodily  to  the  aggregate  extent  of  this  move- 
ment, thus  requiring  the  physical  lifting 
force  of  thousands  of  millions  of  tons  by 
the  efforts  of  an  animal  no  larger  than  a 
pin’s  head,  since  the  weight  of  the  entire 
ocean  rests  upon  it,  and  being  “incom- 
pressible,” must  be  displaced  to  its  farthest 
limits,  according  to  this  highest  American 
authority  on  physics!  A philosopher  who 
really  and  deliberately  supposes  that  if 
water  were  “incompressible,”  which,  as  we 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


1 14 


see,  it  is  almost,  he  would  actually  stir  the 
entire  ocean , and  thus  displace  its  countless 
millions  of  tons  by  dipping  his  finger  into 
it,  as  unmistakably  taught  by  Professor 
j Mayer  in  the  quotation  I have  made,  since 
the  motion  would  be  instantaneously  trans- 
mitted to  every  part  of  it , notwithstanding 
the  wonderful  mobility  of  water  and  the 
facility  with  which  its  particles  accom- 
modate themselves  to  the  movements  of  a 
disturbing  body,  can  hardly  be  pronounced 
the  proper  man  to  write  important  scien- 
tific articles  for  encyclopedias.  I say  this 
with  all  deference  to  his  great  ability  and 
his  acknowledged  scientific  achievements, 
since  it  is  entirely  evident  that  the  errors 
into  which  he  has  fallen,  and  which  have 
equally  misled  the  greatest  physicists  of 
all  ages,  are  due  to  this  prodigious  fallacy 
of  atmospheric  wave-motion,  and  not  to 
any  fault  as  to  his  scientific  education. 

Returning  to  our  supposed  tube  for  a 
moment,  and  the  transmission  of  a con- 
densed wave  through  it  by  the  motion  of 
the  piston,  it  is  well  to  note  the  fact  that 
Professor  Mayer  does  not  confine  his  un- 
scientific reasoning  to  the  pushing  of  the 
piston  alone,  but  reverses  the  operation 
and  supposes  the  piston  to  be  withdrawn 
a short  distance,  with  an  exactly  corre- 
sponding effect.  It  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  this  withdrawal  tends  to  rarefy  the 
air  immediately  behind  the  piston,  and 
necessarily  causes  the  entire  atmosphere 
of  the  tube  to  move  backward  and  fill  up 
the  vacuum  thus  produced.  The  palpable 
error  into  which  he  here  falls,  is  in  making 
the  velocity  of  this  “rarefaction”  neces- 
sarily the  same  as  that  of  the  “condensa- 
tion” caused  by  instantaneously  pushing 
the  piston,  and  both  of  them  necessarily 
the  same  as  that  of  sound , whereas,  if  he 
had  duly  considered  the  matter,  he  would 
have  seen  that  while  the  vacuum  caused 
by  the  instantaneous  backward  movement 


of  the  piston  is  limited,  and  can  only  pro- 
duce a suction-force  of  about  fifteen 
pounds  to  the  square  inch,  whatever  be 
the  distance  the  piston  may  travel  or  what- 
ever the  length  of  the  vacuum  produced 
in  the  tube,  the  spring-force  of  the  air 
caused  by  compression  is  practically  un- 
limited, depending  entirely  upon  the  dis- 
tance the  piston  is  supposed  to  be  instan- 
taneously pushed  forward,  since  atmos- 
phere may  be,  as  we  have  just  seen,  com- 
pressed with  sufficient  force  to  produce  a 
spring  of  1,000,  5,000,  or  even  io,oco 
pounds  expansive  power  to  the  square 
inch.  Yet  this  manifest  difference  between 
the  maximum  force  of  a vacuum  (fifteen 
pounds)  and  the  unlimited  spring-force  of 
a condensation  (from  one  ounse  up  to 
5,000  or  10,000  pounds),  with  which  every 
student  of  natural  philosophy  is  familiar, 
is  wholly  left  out  of  the  calculation  by 
this  learned  physicist,  the  same  as  w>as 
the  mobility  of  the  atmosphere. 

I again  assert  that  it  is  upon  this  very 
kind  of  scientific  (!)  reasoning  that  the 
wave-theory  rests;  and  it  is  these  very 
misapprehensions  about  the  possible  ve- 
locity of  the  transmissions  of  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions”  of  the  air,  while 
ignoring  its  mobility,  which  have  led 
physicists  into  the  monstrous  errors,  al- 
ready exposed,  of  the  assumed  propaga- 
tion of  air-waves  at  a velocity  of  1120 
feet  a second,  sent  off  by  the  aggregate 
movements  of  a tuning-fork’s  prong  but 
seven  inches!  It  is,  in  fact,  these  very  false 
notions  here  pointed  out,  combined  with 
the  sheer  want  of  a little  attention,  which 
have  led  all  sound-investigators  to  detect 
no  difference  between  a condensed  wave  of 
air  caused  by  the  addition  of  a large  quan- 
tity of  gas  at  an  explosion  and  the  sound- 
pulse  which  is  simultaneously  generated. 
Professor  Tyndall,  by  this  weak  system 
of  reasoning,  as  has  been  fully  shown, 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound . 


"5 


necessarily  supposed  it  was  the  “sound- 
pulse”  which  broke  the  windows  at  Erith, 
when  the  least  attempt  at  philosophical 
analysis  would  have  convinced  him  that 
the  sound  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  it,  and  only  accompanied  the  “ girdle 
of  intensely  compressed  air ” which  did  the 
work  of  destruction,  the  same  precisely  as 
the  so-called  tidal  wave  crushes  shipping 
and  houses  when  sent  off  by  a volcanic 
explosion  beneath  the  water. 

It  would  be  just  as  sensible  and  scientific 
for  the  physicist  to  come  before  an  au- 
dience and  attempt  to  explain  the  tidal 
wave  which  recently  shattered  the  shipping 
and  destroyed  a town  on  the  Pacific  coast 
of  South  America  by  calling  it  an  aqueous 
“sound-pulse,”  as  to  do  the  same  thing  with 
the  condensed  air-wave  which  crushed 
the  windows  at  Erith  ! The  two  upheavals 
are  entirely  analogous,  only  the  one  acts 
on  the  ocean  of  atmosphere  while  the 
other  acts  on  the  ocean  of  water,  while 
they  are  susceptible  of  precisely  similar 
solutions,  since  the  tidal  wave,  as  has  often 
been  observed,  is  accompanied  by  the 
sound  of  the  submarine  explosion,  show- 
ing that  this  sound  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  aqueous  concussion ,as  a very 
stupid  schoolboy  ought  to  see. 

If  this  great  scientific  lecturer  should 
ever  undertake  to  account  for  the  phe- 
nomena of  tidal  waves  and  their  destruc- 
tive effects  on  shipping  and  houses,  I guar- 
antee that  he  would  employ  no  such  super- 
ficial and  fallacious  reasoning  as  he  did 
in  regard  to  the  explosion  at  Erith.  He 
would  at  once  recognize,  unless  I under- 
estimate his  sagacity,  the  proper  distinc- 
tion between  the  rumbling  sound-pulse  and 
the  aqueous  concussion  generated  and  radi- 
ated by  the  same  volcanic  upheaval,  and 
would  not  think  of  perpetrating  such  a 
stupendous  scientific  imposition  upon  his 
audience  or  upon  his  own  intelligence  as 


gravely  teaching  that  the  shipping  and 
buildings  were  shattered  by  a “sound- 
wave” of  “intensely  compressed”  water! 
I repeat  that  he  would  not  think  of  apply- 
ing to  tidal  waves  his  logic  in  regard  to 
magazine  explosions  (though  the  philos- 
ophy of  the  two  cases  is  precisely  the 
same),  unless  his  mind  is  more  deeply  im- 
bued with  the  fallacies  of  the  wave-theory 
of  sound  than  would  seem  to  be  possible. 
Then,  if  this  be  the  true  explanation  of 
tidal  waves,  which  no  one  can  question, 
Professor  Tyndall  has  only  to  apply  the 
same  reasoning  to  the  explosion,  and  the 
shattering  of  the  windows,  at  Erith,  and 
his  wave-theory  of  sound  would  at  once 
vanish  into  air  many  times  thinner  than 
one  of  his  thinnest  “rarefactions”! 

It  now  becomes  a matter  of  curiosity  to 
know  whether  these  great  investigators  of 
sound-phenomena  will  be  able  to  compre- 
hend the  distinctions  here  so  elaborately 
pointed  out.  Or  will  they  continue  on  in 
the  future,  as  they  and  their  predecessors 
have  done  for  centuries  past,  to  represent 
the  “girdle  of  intensely  compressed  air” 
which  is  driven  off  by  a magazine  explo- 
sion and  which  crushes  in  windows  and 
even  buildings,  as  identical  with  the 
“sound-pulse”  generated  by  such  explo- 
sion and  radiated  at  the  same  time? 

If  they  shall  not  yet  be  able  to  distin- 
guish between  these  two  distinct  effects, 
then  let  them  try  the  experiment  of  burn- 
ing a couple  of  barrels  of  powder,  and  ob- 
serving the  effects  at  two  separate  stations, 
— distant,  say,  one  and  two  miles, — with 
suitable  instruments  for  recording  the  two 
arrivals  of  both  the  condensed  wave  and 
the  sound  report,  and  I again  predict  and 
guarantee  that  they  will  have  an  abundant 
reason  for  abandoning  the  wave-theory  of 
sound  by  learning,  to  their  amazement, 
that  near  to  the  explosion  the  concussive 
shock  will  outstrip  the  sound,  while  at  a 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


1 16 


sufficient  distance  from  it  the  sound  will 
arrive  some  seconds  in  advance  of  the 
concussion. 

I have  thus  ventured  this  scientific  pre- 
diction in  direct  opposition  to  the  univer- 
sally accepted  theory  of  sound,  and  in  the 
face  of  the  prevailing  opinion  of  scientists 
in  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  sound-pulse 
and  the  condensed  atmospheric  wave 
caused  by  an  explosion.  Should  any  sci- 
entific association  consider  this  prediction 
of  sufficient  importance  to  waste  a barrel 
or  two  of  powder  upon  it,  let  them  explode 
the  former  by  exploding  the  latter;  and, 
should  they  be  successful  in  doing  it,  no 
one  will  feel  more  gratified  at  the  result 
than  the  writer. 

Directly  related  to  the  foregoing,  we 
encounter  another  difficulty  of  similar  im- 
port. Advocates  of  the  wave-theory  labor 
under  an  ever-present  misconception  that 
there  is  an  exact  similarity  existing  be- 
tween the  cause  of  the  stirring  of  a unison 
body  by  sympathetic  vibration  (governed, 
as  I will  show,  by  a law  of  affinity  as  real 
and  as  impossible  for  us  to  understand  as 
is  that  of  magnetic  attraction,)  and  that 
of  the  breaking  of  a window  by  this  con- 
cussive  atmospheric  shock  produced  by 
an  explosion  ; whereas  there  is  a difference 
between  the  two  principles,  their  causes, 
and  their  effects,  as  wide  and  as  deep  as 
between  any  other  observed  natural  phe- 
nomena. I will  here,  as  in  the  preceding 
case,  try  to  point  out  a rational  distinction. 

We  are  referred  to  the  fact,  as  a proof 
of  this  assumption,  that  a very  thin  and 
brittle  vase  may  have  its  air-chamber  so 
accurately  tuned  to  the  pitch  of  an  organ- 
pipe  that  a powerful  peal  will  cause  such 
sympathetic  vibration  as  to  shatter  it.  The 
same  thing  has  also  occurred  with  panes 
of  glass  which  happened  to  be  so  secured 
at  their  edges  and  held  with  such  tension 
that  a loud  unison  tone  from  the  organ  by 


sympathetic  vibration  has  caused  them  to 
break.  Yet  all  the  air-waves  ever  gener- 
ated by  vibratory  motion,  if  wrought  in 
silence,  I care  not  what  their  synchronism 
might  be,  could  never  break  a vase  nor 
stir  a pane  of  glass  by  exciting  sympathetic 
action.  This  self-evident  distinction  be- 
tween atmospheric  vibrations  with  or  with- 
out accompanying  tone,  may  be  new  to 
scientists,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a distinc- 
tion they  are  compelled  to  recognize. 

This  mysterious  sympathetic  action  of 
an  organ-tone  on  a unison  body,  or  on  a 
body  tuned  to  make  the  same  number  of 
normal  vibrations  per  second,  by  which  a 
pane  of  glass  may  be  broken  by  a certain 
organ-peal,  must  not  be  confounded  with 
the  concussive  atmospheric  shock  caused 
by  an  explosion,  as  just  explained,  which 
crushes  in  windows  indiscriminately,  with- 
out the  least  regard  to  their  unison  tension. 
Writers  make  no  distinction  whatever  be- 
tween these  effects,  as  just  seen,  but  note 
them  promiscuously  as  the  result  of  atmos- 
pheric sound-waves.  I offer  the  following 
single  remark,  which  I trust  will  point  out 
the  difference : — 

In  the  case  of  an  explosion,  no  matter 
what  the  pitch  of  the  tone  may  be,  or  what 
the  vibratory  tension  of  the  thousands  of 
panes  of  glass  to  be  broken  may  be,  such 
glass  will  be  broken  exactly  in  proportion 
to  the  force  of  the  atmospheric  wave,  or 
the  quantity  of  gas  generated  and  added 
to  the  air,  and  the  distance  from  the  origin 
of  the  explosion.  Is  this  not  plain? 
Whereas  in  the  case  of  the  pane  of  glass 
vibrating  from  sympathy  and  breaking  by 
a unison  tone  of  the  organ,  no  other  tone 
save  of  that  identical  pitch  could  have 
affected  such  pane  of  glass  in  the  slightest 
degree.  If  all  the  pipes  of  the  organ,  save 
that  one,  had  been  made  to  peal  out  in  a 
single  concentrated  blast — even  if  the  com- 
bined sound  were  of  a hundred  times  the 


ClIAI'.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


1 17 


intensity  of  the  one  pipe  referred  to — they 
would  not  have  stirred  the  pane  of  glass, 
because  no  sound  in  the  combination  con- 
tained the  necessary  synchronous  pulses 
(to  cause  sympathetic  action.  The  reader, 
I am  certain,  must  see  the  difference  be- 
tween these  various  classes  of  phenomena, 
however  physicists  may  jumble  them  to- 
gether in  their  learned  essays  and  lec- 
tures. 

Professor  Tyndall  gives  an  account  of 
two  clocks  placed  close  together  against  a 
wall,  with  their  pendulums  so  accurately 
adjusted  in  length  that  the  ticking  of  one 
clock  finally  starts  the  other  by  sympa- 
thetic action,  and  of  course  attributes  this 
result  to  the  air-waves  sent  off  by  the  vi- 
brating pendulum.  But  to  show  how  erro- 
neous is  this  assumption,  let  the  escape- 
ment of  such  actuating  clock  be  so  muffled 
that  the  pendulum  will  be  made  to  move 
in  silence,  or  oscillate  without  the  music 
of  its  “ticks,”  (and  let  the  clocks  be  so 
placed  that  their  supports  will  not  oscil- 
late from  the  motion  of  their  pendulums,) 
and  it  may  run  till  it  wears  out  without 
stirring  its  neighbor,  notwithstanding  its 
hypothetic  air-waves,  which  are  just  as 
real  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  dash 
in  synchronism  against  the  pendulum  to 
be  moved. 

It  is  a singular  fact,  frequently  observed, 
that  dogs  will  howl  at  the  sound  of  a horn 
or  other  loud  musical  tone.  Who  knows 
but  that  the  sonorous  discharges  from  the 
instrument  may  act  by  sympathetic  syn- 
chronism on  the  laryngeal  muscles  or  the 
unison  tubes  of  the  animal’s  trachea,  caus- 
ing thereby  a vibratory  sensation  to  which 
he  gives  way  in  a prolonged  howl?  In 
support  of  this  supposition,  it  is  a fact,  as 
observation  shows,  that  tones  from  a horn 
about  the  pitch  of  that  portion  of  the  scale 
employed  by  the  dog  are  more  apt  to  ex- 
cite howling  than  notes  of  a distinctly 


different  pitch.  I throw  out  this  hint 
without  indorsing  it.  Possibly  a deaf  dog 
would  not  be  thus  affected,  which  would 
indicate  that  the  sympathetic  action  of  the 
tone  was  conveyed  to  the  vocal  organs 
through  the  tympanic  membrane,  and  not 
through  direct  contact  with  the  trachea. 

The  hypothesis  of  sound  as  substantial 
emissions  furnishes  a beautiful  explanation 
of  the  well-known  phenomenon  of  the 
rising  pitch  of  a steam-whistle  as  a loco- 
motive approaches  the  listener,  and  its 
sudden  fall  as  it  passes  and  recedes. 

The  pitch  of  the  whistle, as  is  well  known, 
is  produced  by  a certain  number  of  vibra- 
tions per  second,  which  causes,  as  I as- 
sume, a corresponding  number  of  sonorous 
discharges  to  come  in  contact  with  the 
tympanic  membrane.  If  the  pitch  of  the 
whistle,  when  the  engine  is  at  rest,  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  A-string  of  the  violin, 
it  has  440  vibrations  to  the  second,  and 
consequently  emits  440  pulses  of  sonorous 
substance,  now  supposed  to  be  so  many 
air-waves.  The  number  of  vibrations  to 
the  second  necessary  to  any  particular 
pitch  is  definitely  ascertained  by  means 
of  an  instrument  called  the  siren  (which 
will  be  explained  in  the  next  chapter),  and 
the  following  explanation  is  based  on  the 
known  velocity  of  sound  through  the  air 
being  1x20  feet  a second  at  ordinary  tem- 
perature, or  about  6o°  Fahrenheit. 

If  the  whistle  is  sounded  while  the  loco- 
motive is  at  rest,  440  sound-pulses  thus 
reach  the  ear  of  the  distant  listener  each 
second,  and  consequently  the  pitch  of  the 
tone  is  A,  as  before  observed,  since  it  takes 
just  that  many  pulses  per  second  to  create 
that  pitch.  But  if  the  locomotive  starts 
toward  the  listener  at  the  rate  of  60  miles 
an  hour,  its  own  speed  (88  feet  a second) 
is  added  to  that  of  the  sound,  and  conse- 
quently an  equal  proportion  of  the  440  (or 
about  35  more)  sound-pulses  strike  the 


1 18 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


ear  each  second,  which  actually  raise  the 
pitch  about  one  note  in  the  scale,  since 
the  greater  the  number  of  sound-pulses 
striking  the  ear  in  a second  the  higher  is 
the  pitch  of  the  tone. 

But  as  the  locomotive  passes  the  listener 
at  this  rate  of  speed,  the  tone  of  the  whistle 
is  observed  instantly  to  fall  about  two 
notes  of  the  scale ; for,  in  receding,  it  also 
subtracts  88  feet  a second  from  the  speed 
of  the  sound, consequently  deducts  another 
35  sound-pulses  from  its  pitch  when  at 
rest, making  a difference  of  about  70  pulses 
between  its  approaching  and  receding  tone. 
In  a word,  as  the  whistle  when  approach- 
ing causes  a greater  number  of  sound- 
discharges  to  strike  the  ear  than  when  at 
rest  its  pitch  is  raised,  so  in  receding  it 
allows  a lesser  number  to  strike  the  ear, 
which  correspondingly  reduces  the  pitch. 

Can  any  explanation  of  this  interesting 
problem  by  means  of  atmospheric  undu- 
lations be  more  simple  or  satisfactory, 
even  if  such  air-waves  had  a real  exist- 
ence? But  when  it  is  considered  that  a 
steam-whistle  can  not  stir  the  atmosphere 
thirty  feet  from  the  locomotive  in  any  di- 
rection (except,  as  before  provided,  in  case 
of  sympathetic  vibration),  and  that  what 
aerial  movements  are  thus  incidentally 
produced  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the 
locomotive  can  not,  by  any  possibility, 
travel  at  a velocity  of  more  than  four  or 
five  feet  a second,  less  than  the  two  hun- 
dredth part  of  the  velocity  of  sound,  the 
beauty  of  the  new  hypothesis  of  substan- 
tial sound-pulses,  as  well  as  its  absolute 
necessity  for  solving  the  problem,  becomes 
strikingly  manifest,  for  otherwise  the  mys- 
tery of  sound-velocity  is  wholly  without 
explanation. 

Another  fatal  misconception  of  scientists 
in  regard  to  the  laws  and  principles  brought 
into  play  by  the  necessities  of  the  wave- 
theory  may  be  here  pointed  out.  They 


tacitly  assume — in  fact  their  hypothesis 
compels  them  to  assume — that  there  are 
two  entirely  distinct  principles  of  wave- 
motion  in  atmosphere,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  there  must  necessarily  be  two  entirely 
different  classes  of  air-waves:  one  suited 
to  their  sound-theory,  which  will  travel 
1120  feet  a second;  and  another  class, 
adapted  to  common  sense,  which  will  not 
move  more  than  four  feet  a second, — both 
manufactured  in  substantially  the  same 
manner.  For  example,  they  all  know  and 
will  readily  admit,  if  I move  a string  or 
piece  of  wire  back  and  forth  in  my  hand 
through  the  air  with  the  most  perfectly 
pendulous  regularity,  and  cause  it  to  travel 
at  an  aggregate  velocity  even  ten  times 
greater  than  it  is  possible  for  it  to  attain 
when  sounding,  that  the  air-waves  will  not 
travel  over  four  or  five  feet  a second,  if 
that  fast,  and  will  not  be  able  to  make 
headway  through  the  dense  air  a dozen 
feet  till  they  will  entirely  die  out.  But 
the  moment  the  same  string  moves  through 
the  same  with  its  two  ends  supported  in 
such  a manner  as  to  generate  tone , though 
with  an  aggregate  velocity  not  one  tenth 
as  great,  then,  presto ! it  sends  off  air-waves, 
according  to  these  learned  physicists, which 
travel  1120  feet  a second,  or  more  than 
two  hundred  times  as  fast!  Why  this  dif- 
ference? The  truth  is,  there  can  be  no 
difference  in  their  nature  or  manner  of 
propagation,  and  these  writers  would  cer- 
tainly see  it  if  they  came  once  to  reason 
on  the  question  with  any  degree  of  scien- 
tific accuracy.  The  necessities  of  the 
wave-theory,  it  is  true,  absolutely  require 
this  distinction  to  be  kept  up,  when  the 
difference  does  not  and  can  not  exist. 
I will  extend  the  above  illustration,  and 
make  this  arbitrary  distinction  so  plain 
that  a blind  man  can  see  it. 

Suppose  the  same  string  to  be  fastened 
at  its  two  ends  to  the  same  supports,  and 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


"9 


that  it  is  caused  to  vibrate  in  the  same 
manner  precisely  by  plucking  it  in  the 
middle.  Now,  if  it  happens  to  be  so 
stretched  as  to  oscillate  less  than  sixteen 
times  a second  it  makes  no  sound,  and  con- 
sequently the  air-waves  which  pass  off 
from  it,  since  they  belong  to  the  slow  class, 
can  not  travel  more  than  a few  inches  in 
a second,  as  these  writers  will  readily  ad- 
mit; but  give  its  tuning-pin  a turn, causing 
it  to  make  forty  or  fifty  vibrations  in  a 
second  instead  of  fifteen,  though  moving 
exactly  on  the  same  principle  and  travel- 
ing the  same  aggregate  distance,  and  in- 
stantly its  air-waves,  moulded  and  sent  off 
in  the  same  manner,  start  through  the  air 
at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a second!  Can 
any  well-balanced  intellect  see  either  con- 
sistency, sense,  or  science  in  this  arbitrary 
and  absurd  distinction? 

The  true  and  only  explanation  of  the 
matter  is  simply  this.  The  air-waves 
moulded  and  sent  off  by  the  motions  of 
the  string  are  in  all  respects  alike  in  the 
two  cases,  having  about  the  same  trifling 
velocity,  not  exceeding  a few  inches  in  a 
second.  In  the  first  instance  the  stops  and 
starts  are  so  slow  that  they  generate  noth- 
ing but  air-waves,  while  in  the  second  in- 
stance the  changes  of  direction  are  suffi- 
ciently rapid  to  generate  sound-pulses  as 
well  as  air-waves,  because  the  sudden  stops 
and  starts,  at  forty  or  fifty  vibrations  in  a 
second,  succeed  each  other  so  rapidly  and 
produce  such  a molecular  effect  upon  the 
atomic  structure  of  the  string  as  to  cause 
the  emission  of  that  peculiar  substance  we 
call  sound.  While  physicists  utterly  fail 
to  make  any  kind  of  a satisfactory  expla- 
nation of  these  phenomena  on  the  theory 
of  air-waves,  but  are  forced  to  encounter 
two  entirely  distinct  classes  of  aerial  un- 
dulations,— one  kind  traveling  seven  or 
eight  inches  a second,  the  other  kind  trav- 
eling 1120  feet  in  the  same  time,  yet  both 


kinds  produced  exactly  in  the  same  way 
and  by  the  same  instrument,  the  new  theory 
of  substantial  sonorous  pulses  steps  for- 
ward, and  in  a single  sentence,  as  above, 
untangles  the  whole  problem,  separating 
the  wheat  from  the  chaff, — sifting  the 
sound-pulses  from  the  incidental  air-waves, 
— placing  the  whole  question  in  an  orderly 
and  a systematic  form  before  the  reader. 
No  physicist  can  fail  to  appreciate  this 
eclaircissement,  and  yield  his  full  consent 
to  its  truthful  consistency,  if  in  connection 
with  it  he  will  turn  back  and  re-read  the 
law  of  sound-generation  as  announced  on 
page  93.  The  truth  is, whenever  scientific 
investigators  shall  come  to  understand  that 
air-waves  have  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  either  the  generation  or  the  propaga- 
tion of  sound,  and  that  they  are  no  more 
an  essential  part  of  these  phenomena  than 
are  the  incidental  waves  sent  off  by  a 
steamboat’s  wheel  an  essential  part  of  the 
boat’s  forward  progression, the  wave-theory 
will  at  once  be  relegated  to  the  limbo  of 
exploded  hypotheses,  taking  its  place  by 
the  side  of  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  astron- 
omy, where  it  should  have  been  consigned 
a thousand  years  ago. 

The  foregoing  argument  is  beautifully 
illustrated  by  the  blowing  of  a bugle-horn, 
which  is  often  heard  in  a still  night  for  a 
distance  of  three  miles  in  all  directions. 
The  bugler  may  blow  directly  through  his 
horn  without  producing  tone,  and  exert 
all  his  lung-power  and  he  can  not  stir  a 
sensitive  gas-jet  twelve  feet  distant,  while 
the  air-waves  he  thus  produces  do  not 
travel  more  than  four  feet  a second,  as  I 
have  repeatedly  demonstrated  by  experi- 
ment, and  as  the  reader  will  no  doubt  wil- 
lingly admit.  Yet  the  moment  the  bugler 
adjusts  his  lips  to  the  mouthpiece  in  such 
a manner  as  to  cause  the  horn  and  its  air- 
column  to  generate  tone  by  the  proper 
molecular  vibration,  he  manufactures  and 


I 20 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sends  off  air-waves,  as  the  current  the'ory 
teaches, with  less  than  one  fourth  the  lung- 
power  he  employed  before,  which  shake 
the  entire  atmosphere  into  oscillations 
throughout  thirty-six  square  miles , causing 
every  particle  of  the  air  to  change  its  posi- 
tion from  a state  of  rest  into  “a  small  ex- 
cursion to  and  fro”!  He  not  only  shakes 
this  vast  extent  of  atmosphere,  causing 
every  atom  of  it  for  three  miles  high  to 
“ swing  to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pen- 
dulums,” as  Professor  Mayer  expresses  it, 
but  he  hurls  these  agitations  at  the  enor- 
mous velocity  of  1120  feet  a second!  He 
not  only  does  all  this,  but,  according  to 
the  wave-theory,  he  converts  these  thirty- 
six  miles  of  atmosphere  into  6,000  circular 
“ condensations  and  rarefactions ,”  the  largest 
of  which  are  nineteen  miles  in  circumfer- 
ence, that  is,  supposing  the  tone  to  repre- 
sent A,  with  440  vibrations  to  the  second, 
so  compressing  the  condensed  portions  of 
these  6,000  waves  at  one  and  the  same 
instant  as  to  generate  sufficient  heat  and 
elasticity  to  add  one  sixth  to  the  normal 
velocity  of  the  sound  of  his  horn ! This 
generation  of  heat  and  elasticity,  the  wave- 
theory  tells  us,  is  caused  alone  by  the  com- 
pression of  the  air-particles  together,  not- 
withstanding their  mobility  and  freedom  to 
escape  pressure, requiring  a physical  force, 
even  if  each  inch  column  of  the  atmos- 
phere were  confined  within  a tube  and 
acted  on  by  a piston,  equal  to  thousands  of 
trillions  of  tons,  as  I will  conclusively  dem- 
onstrate, in  a dozen  different  ways,  before 
this  chapter  is  concluded. 

Is  it  possible  that  any  physicist  can  be 
found,  worthy  of  the  name,  who  really  be- 
lieves that  a man’s  lips  adjusted  in  a pe- 
culiar way  to  the  mouthpiece  of  a horn 
can  actually  produce  such  a mechanical 
compression  of  the  air?  I declare,  upon 
my  conscience,  that  I do  not  believe  there 
is  a sane  man  living,  who,  with  these  facts 


before  him,  can  believe  for  a single  mo- 
ment in  such  a stupendous  and  transparent 
fallacy. 

At  this  point  in  the  discussion,  I ought 
to  say  a few  words  in  regard  to  the  well- 
known  phenomena  of  the  reflection  and 
convergence  of  sound,  which  correspond  in 
all  respects  to  the  same  action  in  light  and 
heat.  Physicists  teach  us  that  sound,  light, 
and  heat  are  all  based  on  the  same  general 
principle  of  undulatory  movement,  and 
alike  are  simply  “modes  of  motion,”  in- 
stead of  the  radiation  of  attenuated  mate- 
rial atoms, — that  they  are  all  governed  by 
the  same  law, — while  the  undulatory  theo- 
ries of  light  and  heat  are  admitted  on  all 
hands  to  have  had  their  origin  in  the  uni- 
versally accepted  hypothesis  of  sound- 
waves. Professor  Tyndall  says: — 

‘ ‘ The  action  of  sound  thus  illustrated  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  of  light  and  radient  heat.  They, 
like  sound,  are  wave-motion.  Like  sound  they 
diffuse  themselves  in  space,  diminishing  in  inten- 
sity according  to  the  same  law.  Like  sound,  also, 
light  and  radiant  heat,  when  sent  through  a tube 
with  a reflecting  interior  surface,  may  be  conveyed 
to  great  distances  with  comparatively  little  loss. 
In  fact,  every  experiment  on  the  refection  of  light 
has  its  analogue  in  the  refection  of  sound." — Lec- 
tures on  Sound , p.  13. 

There  will,  therefore,  be  no  difference 
of  opinion  throughout  the  scientific  world 
on  the  deduction  I make  from  this  cita- 
tion, namely,  that  if  the  wave-theory  of 
sound  shall  be  unequivocally  overthrown, 
the  wave-theories  of  light  and  heat  must 
share  the  same  demolition,  even  if  not  one 
reference  shall  be  separately  made  to  those 
“modes  of  motion,”  since  the  latter  only 
exist  as  deductions  from  the  former.  The 
reader  will  please  remember  this. 

I now  undertake  to  show,  from  the  very 
nature  of  wave-motion,  that  there  can  be 
no  such  thing  as  convergence,  concentration, 
reflection,  &c.,  in  the  case  of  either  sound, 
| light,  or  heat.  Should  I succeed,  I shall,  of 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


I 2 I 


course,  demonstrate  the  fallacy  of  this 
undulatory  law,  and  thus,  in  another  way, 
shatter  the  current  hypothesis  of  sound. 

I state,  as  a fact  recognized  by  all  writers 
on  sound,  that,  in  undulatory  motion  of 
any  kind  there  is  no  forward  movement  of 
the  particles  constituting  the  leave.  The  for- 
ward movement  which  takes  place  is  not 
that  of  the  particles  themselves  which 
compose  the  wave,  but  the  continual  pro- 
gressive change  in  the  swell  caused  by  the 
succeeding  local  oscillations  up  and  down  of 
the  wave-molecules.  There  can  be,  in  fact, 
no  forward  movement  of  any  matter  what- 
ever in  a wave,  the  apparent  progressive 
advancement  being  only  that  of  motion  and 
not  of  substance.  Hence,  I shall  assume, 
as  I believe  the  philosophical  judgment  of 
the  reader  will  bear  me  out  in  doing,  that 
without  the  forward  or  projectile  motion  of 
some  kind  of  substantial  atoms  there  can 
be  no  reflection,  since  reflection,  as  every 
one  knows,  consists  in  the  tangential  re- 
bound of  a body  under  forward  velocity, 
the  rebound  taking  place  in  a direction 
corresponding  to  the  angle  of  incidence. 
Professor  Tyndall  says: — 

“The  motion  of  the  sonorous  wave  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  motion  of  the  particles  which 
at  any  moment  form  the  wave.  During  the  passage 
of  the  wave  every  particle  concerned  in  its  transmis- 
sion makes  only  a small  excursion  to  and  fro.  The 
length  of  this  excursion  is  called  the  amplitude  of 
the  vibration.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  44. 

I have  often  observed  the  undulatory 
movements  of  a field  of  fax  when  in  bloom, 
acted  on  by  a steady  wind.  The  waves, 
undulating  over  its  blue  and  apparently 
liquid  surface,  are  a perfect  representation 
of  the  waves  on  the  surface  of  a clear  blue 
sheet  of  water,  and  occur  by  the  rhythmic- 
ally progressive  sinking  and  successive 
rising  of  the  individual  stalks  of  flax  as 
the  breeze  passes  over  them.  Almost  any 
field  of  small  grain,  when  nearly  ripe, — 
such  as  wheat,  rye,  or  barley, — exhibits 


the  same  wave-effects  by  the  action  of  the 
wind,  as  no  doubt  the  reader  has  often 
observed. 

Now,  it  is  just  as  rational  and  philo- 
sophical to  suppose  that  the  waves  on  the 
surface  of  a field  of  flax  can  be  reflected 
tangentially  at  the  angle  of  incidence  by 
striking  the  fence  diagonally,  as  to  assume 
the  possible  reflection  of  any  other  waves 
whatever.  A moment’s  careful  thought 
will  convince  the  reader  of  the  truth  of 
this  position.  Take,  for  example,  waves 
on  the  surface  of  a pond  of  water,  which 
are  referred  to  by  all  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject as  illustrative  of  supposed  sound- 
waves. I assert  here  that  physicists  are 
self-deceived,  while  unintentionally  de- 
ceiving others,  in  claiming  that  such  water- 
waves  exhibit  phenomena  in  any  way  re- 
sembling reflection  or  tangential  rebound,  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term.  Let  sjich 
water-waves  strike  diagonally  against  a 
plain  perpendicular  surface, such  as  a ledge 
of  rocks,  and,  so  far  from  darting  off  in  a 
direction  corresponding  to  the  angle  of 
incidence  and  at  the  velocity  with  which 
they  came,  as  is  always  the  case  with  light 
and  sound,  they  simply  run  along  this  bar- 
rier, recoiling  slightly  upon  the  next  suc- 
ceeding wave,  the  motion  becoming  there- 
by interrupted,  broken  up,  and  distorted 
into  a mass  of  indistinguishable  hillocks, 
the  same  exactly  as  a wave  driven  over  a 
field  of  flax  disappears  after  striking  the 
fence  by  its  recoil  against  the  next  suc- 
ceeding wave. 

Another  fact,  which  utterly  annihilates 
the  hypothesis  of  sound-waves,  the  recoil 
which  does  take  place,  if  any  particular 
point  of  it  is  carefully  watched,  will  be 
seen  to  re-act  directly  from  the  ledge  of 
rock,  moving  away  at  right  angles  to  the 
line  of  its  surface,  whatever  may  be  the 
angle  of  incidence  of  the  approaching 
wave ! If  there  could  be  such  a thing  as 


122 


The  Pvobleni  of  Human  Life. 


the  reflection  of  a wave,  then,  evidently, 
what  little  recoil  there  would  be  should 
change  its  direction  after  the  contact,  by 
this  law  of  tangents  conforming  to  the 
angle  of  incidence. 

But  the  strongest  reason  against  the 
possibility  of  waves  reflecting — a reason 
which  is  simply  unanswerable — is  the  fact 
that,  in  order  to  reflect,  a wave  is  com- 
pelled to  meet  other  waves  of  superior,  or, 
at  least,  equal  force  and  velocity,  which, 
in  the  case  of  physical  or  corporeal  bodies 
is  an  utter  bar  to  any  further  progress! 
The  common  sense  of  a schoolboy  must 
teach  him  that  a reflecting  or  rebounding 
India-rubber  ball  must  stop  on  meeting  a 
direct  ball  of  equal  size,  weight,  and  ve- 
locity. This  illustration  is  at  least  directly 
applicable  to  air-waves  and  water-waves, 
as  they  are  corporeal  bodies,  governed  by 
the  physical  laws  of  inertia  and  momentum. 
In  the  case  of  incorporeal  substances,  such 
as  the  corpuscles  of  heat,  light,  sound, 
magnetism,  electricity,  and  ether  (if  there 
be  such  a thing),  this  physical  law  which 
tends  to  neutralize  two  equal  forces  in 
case  of  collision  does  not  come  into  play, 
since  incorporeal  atoms  will  collide  and 
pass  through  each  other  without  ei.her 
being  impeded  in  its  progress,  as  seen  in 
the  rays  from  two  magnets  when  made  to 
cross  each  other’s  path.  Now,  it  is  simply 
impossible  for  a wave  of  water  to  recoil 
and  retain  its  proper  form  after  striking  a 
rock,  any  further  than  to  meet  the  first 
direct  wave  following  it.  The  collision 
must,  by  the  very  laws  which  control  the 
meeting  of  physical  bodies  of  equal  force, 
distort  and  shatter  both  the  recoiling  and 
the  direct  waves,  and  prevent  all  further 
symmetrical  progress.  Thus,  in  every  way 
it  can  be  viewed,  the  reflection  of  sounds, 
as  in  case  of  echoes  which  move  off  with 
the  same  freedom  and  velocity  as  the  direct 
sounds,  is  thus  shown  to  be  impossible  on 


the  basis  of  wave-motion,  according  to  the 
laws  governing  the  movements  of  physical 
bodies. 

The  same  effect  as  here  described  in 
water-waves  will  be  found  to  hold  good  in 
the  case  of  air-waves  produced  in  a still 
room  by  the  movement  of  a fan,  especially 
if  sufficient  smoke  be  admitted  to  visualize 
the  atmospheric  movements.  The  waves, 
or,  more  properly,  convolutions  of  air,  will 
be  seen  to  leisurely  roll  up  against  the  wall 
of  the  room,  not  at  the  speed  of  sound  but 
at  a velocity  of  about  four  or  five  feet  a 
second,  then  slightly  recoil  and  mix  up 
with  the  next  succeeding  convolutions, 
without  the  slightest  semblance  of  true 
reflection,  as  I have  frequently  proved  by 
practical  experiment. 

Tangential  rebound , which  is  all  there  is 
of  reflection , is  only  predicable,  therefore, 
of  the  atoms  of  a substance  moving  forward 
with  a certain  velocity , being  suddenly  im- 
peded by  a resisting  surface,  as  a child  can 
fully  comprehend  in  bounding  its  toy  ball. 
Does  not  the  reader’s  intelligence  at  once 
admit  the  truth  of  this  law?  Hence,  as 
the  particles  of  air  or  the  supposed  par- 
ticles of  ether  in  light-waves  do  not  travel 
with  the  undulations  at  all,  but  merely  os- 
cillate up  and  down,  making  only  “a  small 
excursion  to  and  fro,”  having  no  forward 
movement,  it  follows,  therefore,  that  there 
is  absolutely  nothing  to  rebound  or  reflect! 
But  if  light  and  sound  consist  of  real  atoms, 
having  an  absolute  forward  velocity,  or  are 
projected  with  the  speed  of  light  and  of 
sound  against  the  reflecting  surface,  the 
tangential  reflection  corresponding  to  the 
angle  of  incidence  is  as  natural  and  rea- 
sonable as  that  elastic  balls  shot  from  a 
gun  against  the  same  surface  should  re- 
bound in  the  same  manner  and  at  the  same 
angle.  To  a philosophical  mind  desiring 
only  the  truth,  this  scarcely  needs  elab- 
oration. 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


123 


This  must  not,  however,  be  confounded 
with  the  rebounding  of  a jet  of  air  or  water 
forced  from  a hose-nozzle  diagonally 
against  a plain  surface,  for  then  the  air 
' and  water  particles  have  a forward  velocity, 
which,  as  repeatedly  taught  by  Professor 
Tyndall  and  others,  can  not  be  the  case 
in  wave-motion,  every  particle  composing 
the  wave  having  but  a stationary  and  un- 
progressive oscillation. 

The  same  thing,  then,  follows  equally 
true  of  convergence  and  focal  concentration. 
If  a wave  can  not  rebound  tangentially  for 
the  want  of  forward  movement  in  its  par- 
ticles, then  it  can  not  increase  its  intensity 
by  focal  convergence  through  a funnel- 
shaped  tube,  though  the  water  may  mo- 
mentarily rise  in  the  tube  to  the  height  of 
the  wave,  for  convergence  consists  only  in 
a succession  of  tangential  rebounds  or  re- 
flections from  side  to  side  of  such  a funnel, 
concentrating  a greater  number  of  particles 
into  a smaller  compass,  and  thus  gathering 
force  or  intensity  as  the  atoms  approach 
the  focal  point.  Is  not  this  as  clear  as 
that  reflection  consists  of  a single  rebound? 
It  follows,  therefore,  as  there  is  no  velocity 
or  forward  movement  to  the  particles  of 
any  wave,  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
account  for  reflection  or  convergence  of 
light  or  sound  by  the  current  theory  of 
wave-motion,  while  these  phenomena  are 
beautifully  consistent  with  my  hypothesis 
of  sonorous  and  luminous  discharges.  This 
ought  to  be  self-evident  to  the  advocates 
of  the  wave-theories  of  sound  and  light, 
since  they  teach  us  that  the  ether-particles 
composing  the  waves  of  light  do  not  travel 
a single  inch  toward  the  earth  in  the  whole 
journey  of  a ray  from  the  most  distant 
•visible  star.  How,  then,  in  the  name  of 
reason,  could  such  ether-waves,  with  no 
forward  movement  to  their  particles,  strike 
a reflecting  surface  and  rebound  off  tan- 
gentially with  the  velocity  of  light? 


Let  it  therefore  be  remembered,  as  a 
logical  and  unassailable  proposition,  that 
there  can  be  no  rebound  where  there  is  no 
forward  movement  of  particles ; and  without 
rebound  tangentially , or  at  the  angle  of  in- 
cidence, there  can  be  neither  reflection  nor 
convergence.  Will  any  true  philosopher  call 
this  proposition  in  question?  If  not,  then 
this  syllogistic  consequence  follows:  In  all 
sorts  of  wave-motion  there  is  no  forward 
movement  of  particles,  as  proved  by  the 
authority  of  Professor  Tyndall  in  a score 
of  passages.  Without  the  forward  move- 
ment of  substantial  particles  there  can  be 
no  rebound  or  tangential  reflection.  Hence, 
reflection  or  convergence  of  sound  or  light  by 
means  of  undulations,  and  without  the  for- 
ward movement  of  particles,  is  a practical 
absurdity. 

But  how  strikingly  different  is  the  aspect 
of  this  problem  of  convergence  by  means 
of  a funnel,  if  sonorous  pulses  are  viewed 
as  substantial  emissions  radiated  with  a 
velocity  of  1120  feet  a second!  And  how 
beautifully  may  this  funnel  be  supposed  to 
gather  up  the  scattering  sound-particles, 
even  when  so  sparce  as  to  be  inaudible 
without  it,  and  thus  convey  distinct  sonor- 
ous impressions  to  the  auditory  nerve ! 
Viewing  sound  as  composed  of  atoms  under 
velocity,  a little  child,  with  sufficient  judg- 
ment to  watch  the  tangential  ricochetting 
of  his  India-rubber  ball,  can  comprehend 
the  philosophy  of  convergence  and  con- 
centration. The  sound-particle,  like  the 
rubber  ball,  strikes  the  side  of  the  funnel’s 
open  mouth  and  rebounds  at  an  obtuse 
angle,  leaping  to  the  opposite  side  of  its 
inner  surface,  every  rebound  bringing  it 
nearer  and  nearer  to  the  smaller  end,  till 
the  sparcely  scattered  particles  thus  enter- 
ing congregate  at  the  focal  point;  and  this 
is  the  history  of  all  the  particles  entering 
this  wide  mouth,  at  which  point  they  may 
be  so  few  and  scattered  as  to  be  insensible 


124 


The  Problem  of  Human 


to  audition,  yet  by  this  converging  process 
may  be  so  concentrated  in  numbers  as  to 
become  distinctly  audible  at  the  focus. 

lly  a similar  convergence,  through  the 
means  of  a 'large  funnel-shaped  device  on 
shipboard,  a sufficient  number  of  scatter- 
ing sound-particles  has  been  collected 
from  the  ringing  of  a church-bell  on  a 
coast,  to  be  distinctly  audible  one  hundred 
miles  at  sea,  as  recorded  by  Herbert  Spen- 
cer in  his  First  Principles , p.  183.  Yet, 
as  surprising  as  it  may  seem,  this  careful 
analytical  thinker  falls  into  the  scientific 
rue  of  the  wave-theory,  and  takes  for 
granted  that  the  whole  atmosphere  over 
an  area  two  hundred  miles  in  diameter 
was  actually  churned  into  “condensations 
and  rarefactions, ’’with  a force  which  would 
have  required  the  energy  of  more  than  two 
thousand  million  horses , all  by  the  strength 
of  one  man’s  hand  at  a bell-rope!  The 
laughable  absurdity  of  such  an  idea  will 
be  made  fully  apparent  a few  pages  further 
on,  in  which  the  most  incontrovertible 
figures  will  be  brought  to  bear  against  the 
wave-theory.  When  it  is  known,  as  an  ab- 
solute fact,  which  is  susceptible  of  easy 
demonstration,  that  the  ringing  of  the 
largest  bell  in  the  world  can  not  stir  the 
air  at  a distance  of  twenty  feet  from  it,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  sympathetic  action  in  which 
a»  column  of  air  is  tuned  to  perfect  unison, 
as  already  explained,  the  almost  infinite 
fallacy  of  the  current  theory  becomes  ap- 
parent. 

The  successive  rebounding  of  sound- 
particles  from  side  to  side,  as  shown  by 
the  converging  and  concentrating  power 
of  a funnel,  is  the  same  precisely  as  that 
which  takes  place  in  a smooth  tube,  by 
which  a moderately  voiced  conversation 
may  be  carried  on  between  two  persons  at 
its  opposite  ends  a mile  apart.  Instead  of 
the  sound-particles  radiating  in  all  direc- 
tions, as  they  do  if  unconfined,  thus  grow- 


ing weaker  in  the  exact  ratio  as  they  scatter 
and  become  sfarcer,  this  tendency  to  ra- 
diation is  checked  by  the  inner  surface  of 
the  tube,  the  different  particles  rebound- 
ing from  side  to  side  and  thus  reaching  to 
a great  distance  without  becoming  sensibly 
weakened.  While  articulate  sounds  might 
thus  be  conveyed  for  many  miles,  it  is  a 
fact  which  the  advocates  of  the  wave-theory 
would  do  well  to  consider,  namely,  that 
notwithstanding  such  laryngeal  action  does 
not  stir  the  air  within  the  tube  twenty  feet 
from  either  end,  the  firing  of  a pistol 
into  the  mouth  of  such  a tube  would 
produce  a distinct  atmospheric  concussion 
a mile  distant,  and  even  “ extinguish  a 
lighted  candle."  This,  Professor  Tyndall, 
with  his  usual  perspicacity,  adduces  as 
another  illustration  of  the  effect  of  a “so- 
norous wave”  or  “sound-pulse,”  without 
the  least  capability  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween an  explosion  which  adds  a body  of 
gas  to  the  air  of  the  tube  and  the  words 
of  a person  which  merely  disturb  a small 
portion  of  its  equilibrium ! This  unac- 
countable lack  of  discrimination  in  writers 
on  sound,  which  has  just  been  so  fully 
exposed  in  our  examination  of  magazine 
explosions  and  their  effects,  is  one  of  the 
most  demonstrable  evidences  of  the  su- 
perficiality and  utter  incompetency  of 
modern  physicists  as  scientific  guides. 

This  assumption  of  scientists,  that  sound 
is  propagated  by  means  of  air-waves , con- 
sisting each  of  a “ condensation  and  a rare- 
faction,,”  though  infinitely  impossible,  as  it 
will  soon  be  shown  to  be,  is  nevertheless 
an  essential  feature  of  the  current  theory 
of  sound,  or,  more  properly,  it  is  the  very 
foundation  of  the  hypothesis.  It  is  con- 
ceded by  Professor  Helmholtz  that  no, 
other  kind  of  a wave  save  that  consisting 
of  a condensation  and  rarefaction  of  the 
air  is  possible  in  the  midst  of  the  aerial 
ocean,  as  there  is  no  vacant  space  into 


Chav.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


125 


which  the  atmosphere  may  be  projected 
and  depressed  in  the  form  of  crests  and 
furrows,  as  is  the  case  with  undulations 
on  the  surface  of  water  or  any  other  liquid 
body.  He  says: — 

“The  crests  of  the  waves  of  water  correspond 
in  the  waves  of  sound  to  spherical  shells  inhere  the 
air  is  condensed , and  the  troughs  to  shells  of  rare- 
faction. On  the  free  surface  of  the  water  the  mass 
on  compression  can  slip  upwards  and  so  form 
ridges , but  in  the  interior  of  the  sea  of  air  the  mass 
must  he  condensed , as  there  is  no  unoccupied  spot  for 
its  escape." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  14. 

Frankly  and  flatly,  then,  this  great  au- 
thority has  told  us,  and  in  unmistakable 
language,  that  without  these  literal  “con- 
densations and  rarefactions”  of  the  air 
there  can  be  no  such  a thing  as  a sound- 
wave, since  troughs  and  crests  are  out  of 
the  question  “ in  the  interior  of  the  sea  of 
air,”  “as  there  is  no  unoccupied  spot  for 
its  escape,”  as  on  the  surface  of  a body 
like  water.  The  reader  will  please'  remem- 
ber this  important  and  unavoidable  ad- 
mission, which  in  the  end  will  show  beyond 
all  question  that  the  idea  of  sound  travel- 
ing by  means  of  wave-motion  is  a pure 
chimera,  having  not  the  slightest  founda- 
tion in  science  or  in  fact. 

It  is  perfectly  plain,  and  must  be  so  ad- 
mitted by  every  one  who  takes  the  trouble 
to  reflect,  that  if  I can  now  show  the  entire 
impossibility  and  the  undeniable  absurdity 
of  a “condensation  and  rarefaction”  of 
the  air  caused  by  the  transmission  of  a 
sound-pulse,  that  it  necessarily  shatters 
the  whole  wave-theory,  leaving  it  without 
the  shadow  of  a basis  on  which  to  rest. 

To  show  that  this  statement  of  Professor 
Helmholtz  is  not  a mere  slip  of  the  pen 
or  one  of  his  numerous  inconsiderate  re- 
marks, such  as  his  trip-hammer  fiasco  (see 
p.  95),  I will  now  quote  from  Professor 
Tyndall  a few  passages  to  prove  that  he 
not  only  holds  to  the  same  idea,  namely, 


that  a sound-wave  can  not  exist  except  as 
a “condensation  and  a rarefaction”  of  the 
air,  but  so  essential  and  fundamental  is 
this  fact  to  the  theory  that  he  deliberately 
reiterates  it  in  numerous  places  and  in 
various  forms.  To  quote  all  the  passages 
from  this  writer  in  which  he  assumes  this 
position, would  be  to  copy  nearly  a quarter 
of  his  Lectures  on  Sound.  I will  therefore 
cite  a sufficiently  emphatic  instance  or  two. 
He  says: — 

“ With  regard  to  the  point  now  under  consider- 
ation, you  will,  I trust,  endeavor  to  form  a definite 
image  of  a wave  of  sound.  You  ought  to  see  men- 
tally the  air-particles  when  urged  outwards  by  the 
explosion  of  our  balloon  crowding  closely  together; 
but  immediately  behind  this  condensation  you  ought 
to  see  the  particles  separated  more  widely  apart. 
You  ought,  in  short,  to  be  able  to  seize  the  con- 
ception that  a sonorous  wave  consists  of  two  portions, 
in  the  one  of  which  the  air  is  more  dense,  and  in  the 
other  of  which  it  is  less  dense  than  usual.  A con- 
densation and  a rarefaction,  then,  are  the  two  con- 
stituents of  a wave  of  sound." 

“And  here  it  is  important  to  note  that  when  I 
speak  of  vibrations,  I mean  complete  ones ; and 
when  I speak  of  a sonorous  wave  I mean  a conden- 
sation and  its  associated  rarefaction." — Lectures  on 
Sound,  pp.  5,  Gg. 

No  one  can  ask  a more  concise  and 
definite  statement  of  an  hypothesis  than 
this,  and  we  may  thank  these  writers,  par- 
ticularly Professor  Tyndall,  for  leaving 
not  a lingering  doubt  hanging  over  the 
question  as  to  what  is  meant  by  and  what 
constitutes  a sound-wave — 

“A  condensation  and  a rarefaction,  then,  are  the 
two  constituents  of  a wave  of  sound." — “When  I 
speak  of  a sonorous  wave  I mean  a condensation 
and  its  associated  rarefaction." 

But  lest  some  of  my  readers  should  re- 
member the  unfortunate  self-contradic- 
tions in  which  Professor  Tyndall  has  in- 
volved himself  and  his  theory,  and  thus 
be  led  to  place  too  low  an  estimate  upon 
his  support  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  I will 
re-enforce  the  English  physicist  by  the 


126 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


American,  as  I did  the  German  by  the 
English.  Professor  Mayer  (article  on 
“ Sound,”  American  Encyclopedia)  remarks: 

‘ ‘ A sonorous  wave  is  always  formed  of  two  parts, 
one  half  of  air  in  a state  of  condensation,  the  other 
half  of  rarefied  air.” 

I think  the  reader  will  now  admit  that 
I have  struck  the  true  scientific  definition 
of  a sound-wave,  since  the  three  leading 
physicists  who  have  written  on  that  subject 
explicitly  concur,  and  thus  mutually  re- 
enforce each  other. 

The  application  of  this  definition  of  a 
sound-wave  will  not  only  be  now  made  to 
the  theory  in  question  in  a way  which  can 
not  fail  to  test  its  value,  but  it  will  have 
an  entirely  different  and  unique  applica- 
tion in  the  following  chapter,  in  which  the 
scientific  reader  will  no  doubt  be  deeply 
interested. 

Before,  however,  making  a direct  appli- 
cation of  this  frank  but  ruinous  definition 
to  the  working  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound, 
it  is  necessary  to  look  briefly  at  one  of  its 
unavoidable  results  and  adjuncts,  to  which 
I have  frequently  had  occasion  to  refer  in 
the  early  part  of  this  chapter,  and  that  is 
the  incidental  generation  of  heat  by  the 
squeezing  of  the  air-particles  together 
which  takes  place  in  the  production  of 
these  “condensations.” 

It  is  well  known  that  if  the  air  in  a tube 
should  be  compressed  or  squeezed  together 
by  means  of  a piston,  this  condensation 
also  generates  heat,  the  temperature  of  the 
air  rising  exactly  in  proportion  to  the 
pressure  applied;  whereas,  if  the  piston 
should  be  withdrawn  a short  distance,  thus 
creating  a suction  in  the  tube  instead  of  a 
compression,  cold  is  developed  by  the 
rarefaction  of  the  air.  Professor  Tyndall 
demonstrated  before  his  audience,  in  one 
of  his  lectures,  that  by  a sudden  compres- 
sion of  the  air  in  the  tube  a piece  of  ama- 


dou or  common  punk  could  be  ignited,  so 
intense  was  the  heat  generated  by  this 
condensation.  (See  Lectures  on  Sound, 
p.  28.) 

It  is  a singular  coincidence  that  not 
only  are  these  “condensations”  essential 
to  the  life  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  but 
the  very  heat  they  must  naturally  generate, 
if  they  occur  at  all,  has  quite  recently  be- 
come another  absolute  necessity  to  its  ex- 
istence. I will  tell  how  this  occurred.  It 
was  universally  agreed  among  physicists 
that  as  sound  traveled  by  wave-motion, 
its  velocity,  in  passing  through  all  bodies, 
must  be  in  the  exact  ratio  of  their  relative 
density  and  elasticity,  or,  in  other  words, 
it  was  this  relation  of  density  to  elasticity 
which  determined  the  velocity  of  sound 
through  any  medium.  It  so  happened, 
however,  that  Newton,  independently  of 
the  necessities  of  the  wave-theory,  calcu- 
lated the  exact  relative  density  and  elas- 
ticity of  the  air,  which,  when  applied  to 
the  admitted  requirements  of  the  theory 
made  the  velocity  of  sound  in  air  at  the 
freezing  temperature  but  916  feet  in  a 
second,  whereas  the  well-known  observed 
velocity  was  1090  feet,  thus  showing  an 
undeniable  discrepancy  of  174  feet- a sec- 
ond between  the  observed  and  the  required 
velocity,  or  a deficit  of  about  “one  sixth” 
against  the  wave-hypothesis. 

Now,  while  physicists  were  forced  to 
admit  Newton’s  calculation  to  be  correct, 
on  the  basis  of  the  air’s  known  elasticity 
and  density,  the  only  ground  upon  which 
wave-motion,  as  they  agreed,  was  possible, 
here  was  an  absolute  contradiction  of  the 
wave-theory  by  their  own  basis  of  calcu- 
lation, since  observation  proved  sound  to 
travel  174  feet  a second  faster  than  waves 
could  travel  in  an  element  thus  consti- 
tuted. What  was  to  be  done?  No  one 
thought  of  abandoning  the  wave-theory. 
Such  a radical  and  revolutionary  idea  was 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


127 


impossible,  since  no  other  supposition  had 
ever  been  suggested  than  wave-motion, 
and  there  was  no  one  to  propose  this  beau- 
tiful hypothesis  of  substantial  sonorous 
discharges  to  take  its  place, which  so  com- 
pletely, as  we' have  seen  and  as  we  shall 
see,  solves  all  the  problems  and  mysteries 
which  can  be  brought  to  bear.  No  one 
disputed  or  could  dispute  Newton’s  calcu- 
lation, and  there  the  matter  stood,  while 
various  suggestions  were  made  by  physi- 
cists from  time  to  time  with  a view  to 
overcoming  and  reconciling  this  discrep- 
ancy. 

Fortunately  for  the  wave-theory  (and 
the  only  thing  which  could  have  given  it  a 
lease  of  life),  an  idea  occurred  to  Laplace, 
the  great  French  mathematician, — if  not  a 
red-hot  idea,  at  least  one  sufficiently  warm 
to  meet  the  present  emergencies  of  the 
case.  It  consisted  in  simply  utilizing  the 
imaginary  incidental  heat  generated  by 
these  supposititious  condensations  produced 
by  these  hypothetic  sound-waves!  An 
elaborate  statement  of  this  calculation  of 
Laplace  is  given  in  Professor  Tyndall’s 
Lectures  on  Sound  at  about  the  30th  page, 
which  only  goes  to  show  to  what  extent 
a fallacy  of  the  most  glaring  and  trans- 
parent nature  may  be  bolstered  up  by  a 
profound  theorist,  even  when  no  founda- 
tion whatever  exists  for  the  ingenious  ex- 
planation. I can  not  quote  this  long 
mathematical  exposition,  occupying  some 
eight  or  ten  pages,  and  it  is  unnecessary 
to  do  so,  as  the  substance  of  it  can  be 
given  in  a few  sentences.  It  is  substan- 
tially as  follows: — 

If  a sound-pulse  really  produces  a con- 
densation and  rarefaction  of  the  air, which 
at  that  time  was  admitted  by  all  physicists, 
then  it  follows  that  the  air-particles  must 
be  alternately  driven  out  of  their  normal 
position  into  the  condensed  or  heated 
portion  of  the  wave,  and  drawn  back  again 


into  the  rarefied  or  cooled  portion  as  each 
wave  passes,  thus  causing  them  to  keep 
up  a continuous  “excursion  to  and  fro”  as 
long  as  the  sound  lasts.  (The  reader  will 
turn  to  page  78,  and  read  extracts  Nos.  2 
and  3.)  Now,  as  observation  proves  that 
sound  travels  faster  in  heated  air  than  in 
cold,  and  as  heat  also  adds  to  the  elasticity 
of  this  compressed  portion  of  the  wave,  it 
was  calculated  that  this  excursion  of  the 
air-molecules  into  the  heated  or  condensed 
part  and  out  again  would  be  executed 
more  rapidly  than  if  no  heat  or  augmenta- 
tion of  elasticity  was  generated,  and  hence 
it  was  concluded  that  the  velocity  of  a 
given  sound  would  be  sufficiently  increased 
by  this  change  of  temperature  to  make  up 
the  required  174  feet  a second,  or  the  de- 
ficiency proved  by  Newton  to  exist  be- 
tween the  observed  velocity  and  that 
which  it  ought  to  be  according  to  the 
known  density  and  elasticity  of  the  air. 
Professor  Tyndall  generalizes  it  in  these 
words: — 

“The  velocity  of  sound  in  air  depends  on  the 
elasticity  of  the  air  in  relation  to  its  density.  The 
greater  the  elasticity  the  swifter  is  the  propagation  ; 
the  greater  the  density , the  slower  is  the  propaga- 
tion.”— “Over  and  above,  then,  the  elasticity  in- 
volved in  Newton’s  calculation,  we  have  an  ad- 
ditional elasticity  due  to  the  changes  of  temperature 
produced  by  the  passage  of  sound  itself.” — “This 
change  of  temperature,  produced  by  the  passage  of 
the  sound-wave  itself ',  virtually  augments  the  elas- 
ticity of  the  air  and  makes  the  velocity  of  sound 
about  one  sixth  greater  than  it  would  be  if  there 
"were  no  change  of  temperature.” — Lectures  on 
Sound,  pp.  29,  45,  46. 

With  this  statement  of  the  hypothesis 
and  this  assumed  explanation  of  the  dis- 
crepancy demonstrated  by  Newton,  let  us 
proceed  at  once  to  make  an  application 
of  the  data  thus  collected  to  the  wave- 
theory  in  general. 

I have  already  repeatedly  shown  the 
impossibility  of  a tuning-fork’s  prong  send- 
ing off  a condensed  air-wave  at  the  enor- 


123 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


mous  velocity  of  sound  by  its  slow  aggre- 
gate movement  of  only  seven  inches  in  a 
second,  owing  to  the  extreme  mobility  of  the 
air,  an  attribute  which  sound-theorists 
never  name  when  descanting  upon  the 
other  characteristics  of  the  atmosphere, 
namely,  its  density,  elasticity,  and  compressi- 
bility. I defy  the  reader  or  any  other  man 
to  put  his  finger  on  a single  passage  in  the 
writings  of  ancient  or  modern  physicists 
where  the  mobility  of  the  air  is  named  or 
in  ,any  way  referred  to  in  connection  with 
these  hypothetic  “condensations  and  rare- 
factions.” No  writer  on  sound  would 
think  of  embarrassing  and  even  smother- 
ing his  theory  of  wave-motion  by  such  a 
stultifying  and  laughable  inconsistency, 
since  the  two  things  placed  in  juxtaposi- 
tion would  instantly  neutralize  each  other 
by  exposing  the  hollowness  of  the  whole 
assumption,  and  thus  furnish  demonstra- 
tive proof  that  the  slow  movement  of  a 
tuning-fork’s  prong  could  not  drive  a wave 
or  condensed  pulse  of  air  even  a single 
inch  in  advance  of  it  with  the  atmosphere 
as  mobile  and  perfectly  free  to  turn  aside 
and  take  its  place  behind  the  prong  as  it 
is  known  to  be ! Hence,  the  policy  and 
wisdom  in  these  great  scientific  writers 
suppressing  (I  do  not  charge  intentionally ) 
all  mention  of  this  well-known  principle  of 
atmospheric  mobility  when  treating  on  the 
possibility  of  a condensation  and  rarefac- 
tion being  driven  off  1120  feet  by  a dimin- 
utive body  like  a tuning-fork  moving 
through  the  air  a distance  of  only  seven 
inches!  Were  there  no  other  reasons  which 
could  be  urged  against  this  hypothesis, 
that  sound  consists  alone  of  condensations 
and  rarefactions  of  the  air  which  are 
capable  of  generating  heat  and  cold,  the 
facts  just  stated  would  be  all-sufficient  to 
show  the  foundationless  character  of  the 
supposition. 

I have  before  intimated  that  one  of  the 


chief  errors  into  which  writers  on  sound 
have  fallen  is  this  superficial  habit  of 
making  no  distinction  whatever  in  the 
effects  of  bodies  moving  swiftly  or  slowly 
through  the  air.  The  misapprehensions 
of  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  in 
supposing  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork 
“swiftly  advancing”  when  it  was  actually 
moving  but  seven  or  eight  inches  in  a second, 
and  in  supposing  a pendulum  moving 
“slowly”  as  contrasted  with  the  motion  of 
a tuning-fork’s  prong,  when  it  was  really 
traveling  four  times  as  fast,  have  been  al- 
ready distinctly  pointed  out.  On  this  er- 
roneous conception  alone  rests  the  preva- 
lent fallacy  of  a vibrating  string  or  fork 
sending  off  air-waves, with  “condensations 
and  rarefactions,” at  the  velocity  of  sound, 
while  no  matter  what  the  velocity  of  the 
fork  or  string  might  be,  moving  but  the 
small  fraction  of  an  inch  in  one  direction 
and  then  reversing  the  movement,  the  mo- 
bility of  the  atmosphere  would  prevent 
such  aerial  disturbances  from  traveling 
more  than  a few  inches  from  the  vibrating 
body  before  an  equilibrium  would  be  es- 
tablished and  all  wave-motion  of  the  air 
would  cease.  If  these  two  principles  of 
the  mobility  of  the  air  and  the  small  ve- 
locity of  a vibrating  string  or  fork  had 
ever  been  duly  considered  by  physicists, 
the  wave-theory  of  sound  would  long  ago 
have  exploded,  and  would  now  be  looked 
upon  as  an  error  of  the  most  glaring  and 
superficial  character. 

But  while  I thus  emphasize  the  mobility 
of  the  air,  and  the  impossibility  of  a slow 
movement,  such  as  that  of  a fork  or  string, 
producing  any  such  effect  on  the  atmos- 
phere as  the  wave-hypothesis  requires,  I 
do  not  ignore  the  fact  that  a body  passing 
through  the  air  under  very  high  velocity 
meets  with  great  resistance.  This  con- 
sideration alone  would  prevent  condensed 
waves  from  traveling  through  the  air  at 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


129 


the  rate  of  a thousand  feet  a second  by 
some  trifling  vibratory  motion  like  that  of 
a string  or  fork,  or  anything  in  fact  short 
of  a magazine  explosion  or  something  of 
equally  tremendous  power.  No  other  ar- 
gument would  seem  to  be  necessary  to 
show  that  sound  must  be  a substantial 
emission  of  some  kind,  since  a physical 
wave  of  condensed  air,  to  travel  at  such  a 
velocity,  must  require  hundreds  if  not 
thousands  of  tons  of  propulsive  power  to 
start  it  and  then  keep  up  the  motion.  How 
pitiably  absurd,  then,  to  talk  of  such  con- 
densed waves  being  sent  off  at  such  ve- 
locity by  the  infinitesimal  strength  of  an 
insect ! 

Notwithstanding,  then,  the  mobility  of 
the  air,  it  may,  at  the  same  time,  present 
a resistibility  equal  to  that  of  a granite  rock , 
if  the  movement  against  it  be  of  sufficient 
velocity.  Meteoric  stones,  in  passing  into 
the  upper  or  rarer  stratum  of  our  atmos- 
phere, move  with  such  velocity  that  they 
are  first  heated  to  incandescence,  and  in 
reaching  the  more  dense  portion  of  the 
air  they  are  often  crushed  to  atoms  by  the 
contact,  scattering  their  fragmentary  scin- 
tillations in  all  directions.  It  is  only  when 
meteorites  enter  our  atmosphere  in  the 
same  or  partially  the  same  direction  that 
the  earth  is  traveling  around  the  sun,  or 
its  surface  revolving,  that  they  can  reach 
the  ground  without  being  crushed.  The 
hardest  specimen  of  meteoric  iron  would 
crumble  to  powder  on  the  first  contact 
with  our  atmosphere  should  the  collision 
take  place  in  opposition  to  the  earth’s  ro- 
tation around  the  sun,  and  thus  meet  a 
counter  velocity  to  its  own  of  nineteen  miles 
a second;  though  it  is  easily  conceivable 
that  a meteorite  might  enter  the  air  in  a 
direction  corresponding  to  the  earth’s  ro- 
tation both  on  its  axis  and  around  the  sun, 
and  that  the  combined  velocities  might 
thus  so  nearly  agree  that  the  visitor  would 


reach  the  ground  at  a speed  which  would 
not  mar  a block  of  ordinary  sandstone. 
Specimens  of  such  meteoric  rock  have 
often  been  found  almost  intact. 

This  mechanical  viscosity  of  the  air — 
that  is,  its  tendency  to  resist  displacement 
by  a body  passing  through  it — is  beautifully 
illustrated  by  the  fact  that  a mass  of  com- 
mon gunpowder,  exploded  upon  the  face 
of  a granite  rock,  will  not  mar  it  the 
slightest,  for  the  reason  that  its  conversion 
into  gas,  as  well  as  the  molecular  expan- 
sion of  the  gas  when  generated,  is  so  slow, 
comparatively,  that  the  air  has  time  to 
move  out  of  the  way  without  the  rock 
being  affected.  I have  even  seen  a man 
explode  a pistol-charge  of  powder  in  his 
naked  hand  without  suffering  any  injurious 
effect  from  it.  But  let  a body  of  nitro- 
glycerine of  any  size  be  placed  on  the  flat 
surface  of  a rock  and  exploded,  and  the 
surface  will  be  found  to  have  been  shat- 
tered to  a considerable  depth,  which  can 
only  be  accounted  for  by  the  rigidity  of 
the  air  in  resisting  the  enormous  expansive 
velocity  of  the  gas.  To  say  that  the  air  is 
as  solid  as  a rock  would  seem  ridiculous, 
yet  it  has  a good  deal  of  truth  in  it  when 
the  motion  which  attempts  its  displace- 
ment has  a sufficiently  high  velocity. 

But  I have  evidence  to  present  against 
the  hypothesis  of  sound-waves  and  their 
constituent  “condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions,” compared  to  which  the  foregoing 
unanswerable  considerations  are  but  as 
the  softest  zephyr  contrasted  with  the  de- 
vastating cyclone.  I now  proceed  to  pre- 
sent a single  argument,  which,  in  its  rami- 
fications and  various  phases,  will  form  an 
avalanche  of  testimony  against  the  theory 
so  overwhelming  that  its  strongest  advo- 
cates will  be  forced  to  recognize  it  as  en- 
tirely unassailable. 

There  is  a well-known  insect — one  of 
the  locustidae  (a  saltatorial  family  of  the 


130 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


order  of  orthoptera) — whose  stridulation 
can  be  easily  heard  a distance  of  more 
than  a mile.  In  the  summer  of  1867  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  listening  to  one  of 
these  insects  singing  in  a grove  of  trees  on 
the  opposite  side  of  a valley  more  than  a 
mile  wide,  and  it  was  a source  of  astonish- 
ment that  so  diminutive  an  insect — weigh- 
ing less  than  a quarter  of  a pennyweight — 
could  fill,  as  it  did,  four  square  miles,  in- 
cluding, no  doubt,  a mile  high,  with  its 
wonderful  music!  Yet  such  was  the  fact, 
which  is  well  recognized  by  our  greatest 
naturalists,  including  Mr.  Darwin,  who  de- 
scribes the  same  species  of  locust  in  his 
work  on  the  Variations  of  Animals  and 
Plants , and  admits  that  its  stridulation 
can  often  be  heard  a mile. 

According  to  the  wave-theory  of  sound, 
which  I have  the  honor  of  opposing,  this 
trifling  insect,  by  simply  rasping  its  legs 
across  the  nervures  of  its  wings  (for  this 
is  the  way  its  tone  is  produced)  creates  a 
physical  agitation  and  displacement  of  the 
air  which  converts  the  whole  four  cubic 
miles  of  atmosphere  into  waves,  each  wave 
consisting  of  two  parts,  a “ condensation 
and  a rarefaction,”  the  compressed  por- 
tion of  which  contains  a sufficient  aug- 
mentation of  heat  above  the  normal  heat 
of  the  atmosphere,  to  add  “ one  sixth  ” to 
the  elasticity  of  the  air  and  the  velocity  of 
sound  ! I unequivocally  assert  that  no 
sane  mind  can  accept  such  a proposition 
or  intelligently  believe  it,  and  that  any 
man  who  pretends  to  believe  it  (as  all 
advocates  of  the  current  sound-theory 
must  do)  is  self-deceived,  having  never 
seriously  thought  of  the  infinitely  impos- 
sible consequences  involved.  I will  now 
try  to  undeceive  these  astute  physicists  by 
pointing  out  the  consequences,  and  thus 
prick  the  most  stupendous  scientific  bub- 
ble ever  inflated  by  man. 

Within  these  four  square  miles  which 


are  filled  by  the  sound  of  this  insect,  there 
are,  in  round  numbers,  16,000,000,000 
square-inch  columns  of  air,  each  exerting 
a pressure  on  the  earth  and  in  all  direc- 
tions of  fifteen  pounds,  or,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, 120,000,000  tons.  Now,  since  sound 
can  only  travel  by  means  of  air-waves,  and 
as  air-waves  can  be  constituted  only  of  “con- 
densations and  rarefactions,”  and  as  a 
condensation  can  only  take  place  by  the 
particles  of  air,  as  Professor  Tyndall  says, 
“ crowding  closely  together,”  or  a rarefac- 
tion occur  except  by  the  particles  of  air 
separating  “ more  widely  apart,”  and  as 
every  particle  of  air  constituting  a sound- 
wave, according  to  the  same  high  author- 
ity, must  necessarily  make  “a  small  excur- 
sion to  and  fro”  every  time  a wave  passes 
(see  extract  No.  3,  page  78),  it  inevitably 
follows,  if  this  theory  be  true,  that  this  in- 
sect by  simply  moving  its  legs  displaces 
all  the  particles  of  air  constituting  these 
16,000,000,000  inch-columns  for  a mile 
high  and  restores  them  to  their  place  again 
440  times  each  second  (its  tone  being 
very  nearly  A,  or  that  of  the  second  string 
of  the  violin),  and  continues  this  process 
of  thus  churning  the  atmosphere  into  con- 
densations and  rarefactions  a full  minute 
at  a time  ! Do  these  advocates  of  the 
wave-theory  really  believe  this?  Theoreti- 
cally and  superficially,  they  may.  Intel- 
ligently, they  do  not.  Whether  they  do  or 
not,  however,  it  matters  little  to  me,  so 
long  as  their  theory  unequivocally  teaches 
it,  for  I am  not  dealing  with  them  at  all 
save  so  far  as  they  are  identified  with 
their  theory. 

No  one  will  pretend  to  doubt,  who  ad- 
mits the  truth  of  the  wave-theory,  or,  in 
fact,  any  theory  involving  the  motion  of 
the  air  by  the  passage  of  sound,  but  that 
the  stridulation  of  this  locust  must  abso- 
lutely displace  and  cause  to  move  “to 
and  fro”  every  particle  of  air  440  times  a 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


131 


second  throughout  these  four  cubic  miles 
of  atmosphere,  since  it  is  manifest  that 
there  is  not  an  inch  of  space  anywhere 
within  this  vast  area  wherein  the  sound 
would  not  be  heard  if  an  ear  were  present; 
while  no  one  will  think  of  questioning  the 
physical  fact  that  it  must  necessarily  re- 
quire an  appreciable  amount  of  mechanic- 
al force  and  energy  to  shake  a single  inch- 
column  of  air  for  a mile  high,  displacing 
all  its  atoms  for  a certain  distance  (I  care 
not  how  small  that  distance,  if  it  is  but  the 
breadth  of  a hair),  and  then  restoring 
them  the  same  number  of  times  each 
second. 

As  every  particle  of  air  constituting  a 
single  inch-column  for  a mile  high  is  thus 
continuously  shaken  while  the  sound  lasts, 
being  alternately  condensed  and  then  rare- 
fied, heated  and  then  cooled  (as  sound,  re- 
member, can  not  travel  without  this),  will 
some  modern  Laplace  or  Newton  please 
figure  out  this  mathematical  problem,  and 
tell  me  the  exact — or,  if  that  is  impossible, 
the  approximate — mechanical  force  it 
would  require  to  produce  this  physical 
tremor  and  this  continuous  agitation  of 
this  column  of  air?  I have  not  a doubt 
but  that  Professor  Helmholtz  could  do  it 
to  the  thousandth  part  of  a grain,  if  he 
should  set  himself  about  it;  and  provided, 
first  of  all,  that  he  could  tear  himself  loose 
long  enough  from  the  ridiculous  theory  of 
sound-waves. 

In  order  to  form  an  approximate  idea, 
I employed  two  different  mathematicians 
to  determine  the  problem  for  me,  but  I am 
not  sure  of  their  competency,  since  their 
calculations  differed  so  widely  from  each 
other, — one  of  them  estimating  it  to  cost 
the  expenditure  of  fifteen  pounds  of  me- 
chanical force  per  second,  while  the  other 
made  it  about  forty,  that  is,  supposing 
the  distance  the  air-particles  oscillated 
back  and  forth  to  be  the  one  thousandth 


part  of  an  inch  in  amplitude.  The  latter 
gentleman,  however,  took  into  considera- 
tion the  mechanical  equivalent  of  the  heat 
generated  in  the  agitation  of  this  inch- 
column  of  air,  according  to  the  calculation 
of  Laplace,  estimating  such  heat  as  suffi- 
cient to  add  one  sixth  to  the  velocity  of 
sound,  while  the  former  rejected  the  heat 
hypothesis  entirely,  claiming  that  by  no 
conceivable  possibility  could  this  column 
of  air  be  changed  from  heat  to  cold,  how- 
ever slight  the  transition,  440  times  a sec- 
ond,^ even  ten  times,  since  it  would  neces- 
sarily take  an  appreciable  length  of  time 
for  the  heat  to  radiate  or  be  transferred 
from  the  hot  part  of  the  wave  to  the  cold, 
even  if  such  heat  and  cold  exist,  as  the 
wave-theory  requires.  This  suggestion, 
which  had  never  occurred  to  me  before, 
became  at  once  ‘another  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  the  infinite  impracticability  of 
the  wave-theory,  which  actually  requires 
the  same  particles  of  air,  through  which 
the  sound,  for  example,  of  the  high  D of 
the  piccolo  flute  passe.s,  to  be  alternately 
heated  and  cooled  off  4,752  times  each 
second,  since  that  many  separate  air-waves 
are  sent  off  by  this  tone,  a thing  so  tran- 
scendency improbable  and  inconceivable 
that  it  alone  ought  to  cause  the  rejection 
of  the  wave-theory  with  any  mind  capable 
of  reasoning  on  a scientific  subject! 

This  view  is  also  tacitly  admitted  by 
Professor  Tyndall,  since  he  distinctly  tells 
us  on  page  36  of  Lectures  on  Sound  that 
the  air  is  practically  devoid  of  “radiative 
power.”  If  atmosphere  can  not  radiate 
its  heat,  how  then  in  the  name  of  philos- 
ophy can  the  same  mass  of  air-particles 
becofrie  alternately  heated  and  cooled 
thousands  of  times  each  second,  as  they 
must  do  according  to  the  wave-theory? 
The  same  air-particles  precisely  have  to 
become  condensed  and  then  rarefied , heated 
and  then  cooled , at  this  rapid  alternation ; 


1 32 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


yet  this  “highest  living  authority,”  as  Pro- 
fessor Youmans  calls  him,  teaches  “ the 
practical  absence  of  radiative  power  in  at- 
mospheric air."  If  there  is  no  power  in 
air-particles  to  radiate  their  heat,  and  thus 
transfer  it  to  other  bodies  or  other  air- 
particles,  then  it  manifestly  follows  that 
particles  of  air  once  heated  must  continue 
to  retain  their  heat,  and  can  not  continu- 
ously alternate  from  heat  to  cold  thou- 
sands of  times  a second.  Yet  this  “highest 
living  authority”  can  not  see  that  this 
“practical  absence  of  radiative  power  in 
atmospheric  air”  utterly  annihilates  the 
wave-theory,  which  depends  alone  for  its 
existence  upon  this  almost  infinite  facility 
of  change  from  heat  to  cold  by  “radiative 
power”! 

Finally,  to  provide  against  the  contin- 
gency of  a possible  excess  of  physical  force 
in  this  calculation,  I reduced  the  actual 
vis  viva  required  to  produce  the  rapid  vi- 
bratory motion  of  a single  inch-column  of 
air  for  a mile  high  to  one  pound  a second, 
evidently  much  below  the  actual  force  it 
would  take,  which  reveals  the  tantalizing 
fact,  as  it  must  be  to  Professor  Tyndall, 
that  an  insect  which  could  not  stir  a half- 
ounce weight  by  exercising  all  its  strength 
to  the  best  advantage  is  made  by  the  wave- 
theory  to  produce  a physical  and  mechan- 
ical effect  by  the  movement  of  its  legs 
equal  to  sixteen  thousand  million  pounds,  as 
there  are  that  many  inch-columns  of  air 
to  be  thus  thrown  into  violent  tremor  by 
this  stridulation,  as  certain  as  there  is  the 
least  basis  of  truth  in  the  current  theory 
of  sound!  Is  it  possible  that  any  well- 
balanced  intellect  can  really  subscribe  to 
this  inevitable  result  of  the  theory?  I care 
not  how  much  this  calculation  is  reduced 
in  reason  below  these  figures, — even  if  we 
suppose  it  to  require  but  the  one  thousandth 
part  of  an  ounce  of  mechanical  force  to 
shake  this  inch-column  of  air  for  a mile 


high,  it  would  still  require  a physical 
moving  power  to  be  exerted  by  this  locust, 
as  any  one  can  demonstrate  by  a few  fig- 
ures, of  one  million  pounds!  Is  a theory 
requiring  such  manifestly  impossible  re- 
sults worthy  of  the  nineteenth  century? 
Is  it  not,  rather,  utterly  inconceivable  that 
any  physicist  in  his  senses  can  believe,  as 
does  Professor  Mayer,  that  these  four  cubic 
miles  of  atmosphere,  with  a mechanical 
pressure  of  120,000,000  tons,  are  actually 
churned  into  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions, and  its  particles  made  to  oscillate 
"to  and fro  with  the  motions  of pendulums ,” 
as  he  expresses  it,  by  an  insect  which  has 
not  strength  enough  to  compress  a single 
cubic  inch  of  air,  if  acted  on  in  a tube 
without  friction,  the  one  four  hundred  and 
eightieth  of  an  inch,  estimating  its  shoving 
power  against  the  piston  at  half  an  ounce  ? 
Is  it  possible  that  any  man  capable  of  rea- 
soning at  all  can  believe  that  by  the  mo- 
tions of  this  insect’s  legs — no  larger  than 
small  pins,  and  not  exceeding  in  the  aggre- 
gate a distance  of  three  inches  in  a second, — 
air-waves  constituted  of  “condensations 
and  rarefactions”  are  actually  hurled 
throughout  this  vast  area  at  a velocity 
four  thousand  times  greater  than  that  of  the 
instrument  which  gives  them  their  impetus? 

It  will  not  do  for  physicists  to  “Pooh! 
Pooh!”  this  calculation,  and  try  to  blot 
out  the  difficulty  or  the  danger  to  their 
theory  by  shutting  their  own  eyes  to  its 
overwhelming  character, — as  the  ostrich 
shuts  out  the  danger  of  the  hunter  by 
thrusting  its  head  into  the  sand, — and 
say,  as  some  of  them  have  done,  “Oh,  these 
figures  are  all  very  easily  made,  and  look 
very  formidable  on  paper,  but  they  amount 
to  nothing  when  arrayed  against  the  long- 
established  scientific  data  upon  which  the 
current  sound-theory  rests!”  Well,  we 
shall  see,  a little  further  on,  whether  or 
not  a theory  can  stand  on  the  strength  of 


Chai>.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


133 


its  venerable  character,  after  being  proved 
in  a hundred  different  ways  to  contravene 
the  unchangeable  laws  of  mathematics  and 
mechanics,  while  at  the  same  time  contra- 
dicting observation  and  the  reason  of  all 
reflecting  minds.  We  shall  further  see 
whether  a theory  can  continue  to  prevail 
and  rank  as  scientific,  when  its  ablest  ad- 
vocates can  not  advance  an  argument  in 
its  support  which  will  not,  when  fairly 
analyzed,  overthrow  it,  as  recently  seen 
with  magazine  explosions  and  their  effects 
in  the  breaking  of  windows  at  a distance. 
Let  us  now  look  at  some  of  these  self- 
annihilating  efforts  of  physicists  in  support 
of  the  current  theory  of  sound,  as  exem- 
plified by  the  stridulation  of  this  locust. 

Writers  on  sound  seem  to  keep  up  a 
show  of  respect  for  the  physical  laws  of 
mechanics  and  mathematics,  even  when 
their  premises  completely  overthrow  their 
theory.  While  insisting  on  the  hypothesis 
that  sound  in  passing  through  the  air  pro- 
duces actual  “condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions,’’which  alternately  generate  heat  and 
cold  enough  to  add  “one  sixth”  to  the 
velocity  of  sound,  they  are  unavoidably  at 
times  driven  into  the  terrible  necessity  of 
the  perpetration  of  figures , which,  when 
analytically  considered,  absolutely  anni- 
hilate wave-motion.  In  opposing  the  un- 
dulatory  theory  of  sound,  therefore,  I do 
not  need  to  put  forward  a basis  of  my 
own  as  to  the  physical  force  a tone  must 
exert  on  the  air  through  which  it  passes, 
and  thus  determine  the  corporeal  strength 
of  a locust  in  churning  four  cubic  miles 
of  atmosphere  into  “condensations  and 
rarefactions.”  I have  simply  to  take  the 
figures  furnished  ready  to  my  hand  by 
these  authoritative  writers,  and  apply  them 
to  the  observed  sound  of  the  locust,  in 
order  to  exhibit  the  wave-hypothesis  as 
one  of  the  most  inexcusable  fallacies  ever 
conceived  by  a human  intellect. 


For  example,  Professor- Mayer,  the  high- 
est American  authority  on  sound,  has  not 
left  us  to  flounder  in  the  dark  on  this 
question,  but  tells  us  in  explicit  terms  how 
much  “compression”  a sound-wave  pro- 
duces on  the  air  in  passing  through  it,  so 
that  we  may  have  a definite  basis  for  cal- 
culating the  mechanical  strength  of  the 
locust.  He  says: — 

“This  compression  gives  for  the  compressed  half 
of  the  wave  an  increase  of  to  the  ordinary 
density  of  the  atmosphere .” — Article  on  “ Sound 
American  Encyclopedia. 

He  here  refers  to  the  note  C,  having 
250  vibrations  to  the  second.  He  does 
not  say  whether  a tone  lower  or  higher 
than  this  would  or  would  not  produce  a 
greater  “compression”  of  the  air;  but  we 
would  naturally  infer  that  the  note  A,  with 
440  waves  a second,  should  generate  more 
compression  and  a greater  quantity  of  heat 
than  one  giving  to  the  air-particles  a less 
number  of  pendulous  movements.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  the  difference  is  not  es- 
sential to  my  argument  should  it  be  a little 
one  way  or  the  other,  so  we  will  consider 
the  amount  of  “compression”  produced 
by  any  sound  to  be  practically  the  same, 
and  assume  that  the  figures  here  an- 
nounced by  Professor  Mayer  are  properly 
and  accurately  calculated,  with  the  wave- 
theory  as  a basis,  which  will  enable  us  at 
once  to  determine  the  mechanical  force 
exerted  by  any  sounding  body  in  convert- 
ing four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  into 
“condensations  and  rarefactions.” 

Now,  as  this  sound,  in  passing  through 
the  air,  actually  produces  such  a conden- 
sation as  makes  the  “density”  of  the  com- 
pressed half  of  the  wave  ‘Vhy”  greater 
than  that  of  the  normal  air  through  which 
no  sound  is  passing,  and  since  one  half  of 
the  four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  per- 
meated by  this  stridulation  is  continually 
in  a state  of  “compression”  while  the 


134 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sound  lasts,  it  mathematically  follows  that 
each  cubic  inch  of  air  within  this  com- 
pressed portion — or,  in  other  words,  one 
half  of  all  the  cubic  inches  constituting 
this  mass  of  atmosphere — is  absolutely 
increased  in  “density”  “tsfg,”  while  the 
other  half  of  the  atmosphere  constituting 
the  “rarefactions”  is  reduced  in  “density” 
in  like  proportion. 

There  is  no  escape  from  this  astounding 
conclusion,  as  these  are  the  figures  of  the 
foremost  advocate  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sound  in  this  country — not  mine,  while 
they  are  figures  which  the  physicists  of  the 
whole  world  are  forced  to  admit,  since 
without  exception  writers  on  sound  assume 
the  same  “condensations”  of  the  air  by 
the  passage  of  sonorous  waves  which  he 
does,  and  boldly  claim  that  they  generate 
sufficient  heat  by  compression  to  add  “one 
sixth”  to  the  velocity  of  sound,  while  Pro- 
fessor Mayer  is  but  the  frank,  outspoken 
mathematician,  who  formulates  their  cal- 
culations, and  gives  us  the  result  in  plain 
vulgar  fractions,  thus  showing  us  exactly 
how  much  a sonorous  wave  must  neces- 
sarily compress  the  air. 

The  culmination,  then,  of  this  destruc- 
tive argument, amounts  to  this:  As  a cubic 
inch  of  air,  when  compressed  to  double  the 
normal  density  of  the  atmosphere,  requires 
a squeezing  force  of  fifteen  pounds, as  every 
student  of  philosophy  knows,  it  will  of 
course  take  but  the  simplest  mathematical 
talent  to  calculate  the  whole  amount  of 
pressure  exerted  by  the  locust  throughout 
the  four  cubic  miles, — since  it  must  be  the 
■5-7-5  of  15  pounds  to  each  cubic  inch  in 
the  “compressed  half”  of  this  mass  of  air! 
As  there  are,  in  round  numbers,  but  cor- 
rect figures,  1,000,000,000,000,000  cubic 
inches  within  these  four  cubic  miles,  one 
half  of  which  (500,000,000,000,000)  is  un- 
der pressure,  having  an  increased  density 
. equal  to  trra  of  15  pounds  for  each  cubic 


inch,  we  reach  the  definite  and  authorita- 
tive result  of  10,000,000,000,000  pounds 
physical  pressure,  or  an  actual  mechanical 
energy  exerted  by  this  insect  in  producing 
its  stridulation  of  five  thousand  7>iillion 
tons! 

Will  physicists  “Pooh!  Pooh!”  these 
figures,  as  having  no  weight  against  the 
venerable  wave-theory  of  sound?  If  they 
do,  then  they  scout  their  own  data,  delib- 
erately formulated  and  placed  on  record 
by  one  of  their  ablest  collaborators.  Any 
schoolboy  can  take  the  statement  of  Pro- 
fessor Mayer,  quoted  above,  and  in  fifteen 
minutes  reach  the  same  incontrovertible 
result  here  given. 

It  now  becomes  a matter  of  curiosity 
and  exciting  interest  to  the  scientific  as 
well  as  to  the  unscientific  world  to  know 
what  physicists  can  say  to  these  mathe- 
matical demonstrations!  Will  they  say 
anything? — or  will  they  attempt  to  pass 
the  whole  matter  over  in  silence,  on  the 
ground  that  the  writer  of  this  monograph 
happens  to  be  unknown, — having  not  the 
prestige  of  a great  scientific  reputation  by 
which  to  herald  his  discoveries  and  an- 
nouncements? We  shall  patiently  wait 
and  see.  One  thing  is  certain,  whatever 
physicists  may  do  or  say:  it  now  stands 
upon  record,  and  will  so  stand  while  books 
are  read,  that  if  the  wave-theory  of  sound 
be  true,  as  presented  in  all  scientific  works 
on  the  subject,  a mere  insect,  by  the  move- 
ments of  its  delicate  legs,  can  and  does 
absolutely  convert  four  cubic  miles  of  at- 
mosphere into  “condensations  and  rare- 
factions,” exerting  a literal,  physical,  and 
mechanical  energy,  as  above  demonstrated, 
of  5,000,000,000  tons!  As  such  a result  is 
an  infinite  impossibility,  the  wave-theory, 
without  another  argument  against  it,  is 
thus  demonstrated  to  be  an  infinite  ab- 
surdity. 

No  doubt  the  reader  by  this  time  is 


Chap.  V. 


Ttie  Nature  of  Sound. 


135 


ready  to  ask:  “Though  you  have  used  the 
stridulation  of  the  locust  to  make  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  appear  almost  in- 
finitely ridiculous,  have  you  not  also  by 
the  same  illustration  succeeded  in  making 
your  own  hypothesis  of  substantial  emis- 
sions equally  absurd?  Is  it  possible,”  he 
might  naturally  continue,  “that  such  a 
diminutive  insect  can  fill  four  square  miles 
with  any  conceivable  substance,  how  much 
soever  attenuated,  keep  up  these  discharges 
for  hours,  and  still  not  appreciably  dimin- 
ish its  weight?” 

I admit  the  legitimacy  and  fairness  of 
this  inquiry,  provided  the  one  who  makes 
it  is  not  a believer  in  the  hypothetic  lumi- 
niferous ether,  believed  in  by  all  advocates 
of  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  which  circu- 
lates freely  in  the  substance  of  the  dia- 
mond, yet  is  a material  substatice  resembling 
a “jelly”!*  No  scientist  who  holds  to 
the  undulatory  theory  of  light  and  this 
gelatinous  ether  has  any  business  to  put  a 
question  involving  a doubt  as  to  the  pos- 
sible tenuity  or  penetrability  of  any  sub- 
stantial entity,  even  if  a quantity  the  size 
of  a pin’s  head  should  be  claimed  as  suffi- 
cient, when  spread  out,  to  cover  the  whole 
earth;  but  the  unscientific  reader  has  a 
legitimate  right  to  ask  this  question,  and 
to  him  I propose  to  give  a brief,  and,  I 
trust,  satisfactory  answer. 

* “The  luminiferous fZ/whas definite  mechanical 
properties.  It  is  almost  infinitely  more  attenuated 
than  any  known  gas,  but  its  properties  are  those  of 
a solid  rather  than  those  of  a gas.  It  resembles 
jelly  rather  than  air.” 

“To  account  for  the  enormous  velocity  of  prop- 
agation in  the  case  of  light,  the  substance  which 
transmits  it  is  assumed  to  be  of  both  extreme  elas- 
ticity and  extreme  tenuity.  This  substance  is  called 
the  luminiferous  ether.  It  fills  all  space;  it  sur- 
rounds the  atoms  of  bodies.  . . . The  molecules  of 
luminous  bodies  are  in  a state  of  vibration.  The 
vibrations  are  taken  up  by  the  ether  transmitted 
through  it  in  waves." — TYNDALL  on  Light , pp. 
57.  60. 


I have  In  the  preceding  chapters  had 
occasion  to  refer  frequently  to  the  won- 
derful nature  and  inconceivable  tenuity 
of  odor,  though  perfectly  cognizable  by 
the  olfactory  nerves,  just  as  sound  is  cog- 
nizable by  the  auditory  organs. 

Fortunately  for  my  hypothesis  of  sound 
as  substantial  emissions,  I am  left  unin- 
volved  in  any  absurdity,  as  I will  show, 
by  the  universal  admission  of  science  that 
fragrance  is  a real  corporeal  substance, 
having  definite  material  atoms, — so  I am 
relieved  of  the  necessity  of  all  argument 
on  that  point. 

Though  odor  is  governed  by  a different 
law  of  radiation  and  conduction  from 
those  of  sound,  light,  heat,  magnetism, 
electricity,  &c.,  each  having  its  own  pecu- 
liar conditions  of  diffusion  and  conduc- 
tion, yet  it  is  a probable  fact,  sufficiently 
well  attested  by  approximate  experiments, 
that  a quantity  of  musk  no  larger  than  a 
locust,  if  properly  distributed  and  with 
suitable  conditions  for  confining  its  emana- 
tions, would  fill  four  cubic  miles  with  its 
material  corpuscles,  till  a sensitive  olfac- 
tory at  any  square  inch  of  this  area  would 
detect  its  presence,  yet  if  the  original  mass 
were  to  be  afterward  weighed  with  the 
most  sensitive  balance  it  'would  show  no 
appreciable  reduction  in  weight. 

To  add  to  the  force  of  this  illustration, 
I will  adduce  a well-known  fact  which  can 
not  fail  to  show  the  marvelous  tenuity  of 
odor,  defying  absolutely  all  efforts  of  the 
imagination  to  conceive  it  as  composed  of 
separate  substantial  atoms. 

A hound  of  a certain  breed,  with  highly 
sensitive  olfactories,  will  follow  the  direc- 
tion of  a fox  over  hill  and  dale,  through 
forest  and  jungle,  hours  after  it  has  passed, 
and  even  when  it  has  reached  a score  of 
miles  ahead.  Yet  the  hound  does  not  de- 
pend on  touching  the  tracks  of  the  fox 
with  his  nose,  or  even  of  following  its  exact 


136 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


path;  but,  as  observed  by  the  writer  (hav- 
ing seen  a fox  pass  hours  before, and  noting 
the  exact  path  taken  by  its  feet),  will  fre- 
quently vary  rods  from  the  true  path,  yet, 
keeping  on  in  the  general  direction,  will 
pursue  his  game  with  unerring  certainty. 

So  defined  and  substantial  are  the  odor- 
ous particles  emanating  from  the  footfalls 
of  the  fox,  that  a dog,  on  striking  a trail 
hours  old,  will  almost  instantly  decide,  by 
the  arrangement  of  the  atoms  in  the  air, 
the  direction  it  has  taken;  but  if  moment- 
arily mistaking  the  back-track,  the  differ- 
ence, probably,  in  the  intensity  of  the  sur- 
charged air  warns  him  of  his  error,  and 
leads  him  to  reverse  his  course. 

Before  stopping  to  quibble  about  the 
impossibility  of  sound  being  substantial 
emanations  from  its  inconceivable  tenuity, 
let  us  try  to  grasp  the  marvelous  lesson 
taught  by  this  fox  and  hound.  Though 
the  wind  may  blow  across  the  trail,  carry- 
ing off  for  hours  the  odorous  clouds  which 
have  risen  from  the  instantaneous  impress 
of  the  feet  upon  the  earth,  filling  thus, 
perhaps,  vast  areas  along  the  trail  with 
those  magical  atoms  of  perfume,  exceed- 
ing possibly  in  extent  many  times  the  four 
square  miles  of  air  surcharged  by  the  lo- 
cust, yet  sufficient  odor  remains,  extending 
for  rods  on  both  sides  of  the  trail,  to  enable 
the  hound  to  pursue  his  distant  game  with 
infallible  precision. 

I now  ask  the  puzzled  reader,  who  fails 
to  see  how  the  locust  can  fill  an  area  two 
miles  square  with  sonorous  substance  and 
not  appreciably  reduce  its  weight,  to  tell 
me  approximately  how  much  reynard  has 
reduced  his  feet  in  size  and  weight  by  the 
clouds  of  odor  diffused  along  his  track  for 
a hundred  miles?  Though  the  feet  may 
have  deteriorated  by  the  roughness  of  the 
journey  and  their  two  hundred  thousand 
impacts  upon  the  hard  earth,  yet  I venture 
the  suggestion  that  the  cubic  miles  of 


odorous  substance  which  encompassed  the 
trail  and  guided  the  hound,  did  not  dim- 
inish the  weight  of  either  foot  an  appre- 
ciable fraction  of  a grain.  Yet  those  miles 
of  odor-surcharged  atmosphere  were  filled 
with  substantial  emissions , as  all  science 
unites  in  assuring  us,  though  not  so  ten- 
uous, probably,  as  sonorous  substance,  yet 
sufficiently  near  it  to  cause  the  imagina- 
tion to  retire  discomfited  and  confounded. 

The  reader  thus  has  a rational  answer 
to  his  question  in  this  somewhat  analogous 
substance  of  odor,  showing  that  it  is  not  at 
all  among  the  impossibilities, nor  is  it  even 
improbable,  that  the  locust  should  fill  such 
an  area  with  sonorous  substance,  from  this 
analogue  in  the  fox’s  feet, — whilst  not  the 
shadow  of  an  answer  can  be  offered  by  the 
advocates  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound  for 
the  reasonableness  of  corporeal  results 
equal  to  the  mechanical  energy  of  a mil- 
lion  locomotives  ascribed  to  the  physical 
strength  of  a single  insect. 

The  possibility  of  a locust  filling  four 
cubic  miles  with  some  kind  of  tenuous 
substance,  is  not,  therefore,  at  all  incon- 
ceivable, since  we  have  the  positive  dem- 
onstration that  there  is  no  imaginable 
limit  to  the  tenuity  of  substantial  emis- 
sions, as  seen  with  odor.  This  fact  of  un- 
limited tenuity  is  a very  different  thing, 
however,  from  the  unlimited  strength  of 
an  insect  in  accomplishing  physical  and 
mechanical  results  by  doing  absolute  work 
in  the  agitation  and  displacement  of  a 
corporeal  body  like  atmosphere, — exerting 
an  energy,  as  it  must  do  according  to  the 
wave-theory,  as  just  seen,  of  5,000,000,000 
tons.  While  the  tenuity  of  substantial 
emanations  is  practically  unlimited,  so  far 
as  human  intellect  can  conceive,  physical 
and  mechanical  results,  such  as  compress- 
ing the  air  or  overcoming  the  inertia  of 
bodies,  changing  them  from  a state  of  rest 
to  a stake  of  motion,  are  definitely  and 


Chav.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


137 


determinatcly  limited  and  bounded  by  the 
strength  of  the  being  or  motor  employed! 
As  well  might  we  suppose  it  possible  for  a 
man  to  knock  into  fragments  a range  of 
mountains  and  scatter  the  particles  over 
miles  of  territory  by  a single  blow  of  his 
hand  as  to  believe  it  possible  for  an  insect 
to  perform  the  work  ascribed  to  it  by  the 
advocates  of  the  wave-theory. 

It  is  only  our  intense  ignorance  of  the 
inscrutable  tenuity  and  incommensurable 
penetrability  of  the  intangible  substances 
of  Nature  everywhere  around  us, and  even 
within  us,  which  could  persist  in  causing 
such  inquiries  as  the  one  just  answered. 
When  we  come  to  accept  Nature’s  unsolv- 
able  mysteries — among  them  her  recondite 
and  intangible  though  substantial  entities, 
such  as  sound,  light,  heat,  &c. — with  less 
of  scientific  egotism  and  more  of  that 
wholesome  faith  in  the  rational  hypothesis 
of  an  intelligent  First  Cause,  the  world 
will  not  be  so  apt  to  continue  for  centuries 
hugging  to  its  embrace,  under  the  name  of 
“science,”  such  a stupendous  philosophical 
monstrosity,  and,  at  the  same  time,  such  a 
pitiable  fallacy  as  this  Undulatory  Theory 
of  Sound;  but  with  expanded  freedom  of 
thought  to  look  into,  or  at  least  toward, 
the  Unknowable  Essence,  and  to  conceive 
Him  as  manifested  in  His  works, — with 
less  of  veneration  for  scientific  formulas 
and  with  moderated  respect  for  canonized 
authority  in  theoretical  science,  we  might 
reasonably  expect  in  the  near  future  to 
solve  mysteries  as  profound  as  a planetary 
ellipse,  and  overthrow  scientific  theories 
as  well  established  as  those  of  sound,  light, 
and  heat. 

But  I have  not  yet  dismissed  my  favorite 
locust.  I have  other  uses  for  it,  and  pro- 
pose to  make  it  serve  me  in  overthrowing 
the  wave-theory  in  yet  two  or  three  differ- 
ent ways  which  physicists  will  hardly  fail 
to  appreciate. 


As  I have  just  had  the  pleasure  of  ap- 
plying its  stridulation  to  the  innocently 
appearing  figures  and  data  of  Professor 
Mayer,  and  of  demonstrating  by  them  that 
this  insect  has  a physical  strength  in  com- 
pressing the  air  equal  to  5,000,000,000  tons 
mechanical  force,  I now  propose  to  apply 
the  same  music  to  the  figures  of  Professor 
Tyndall  on  the  heat  hypothesis  of  Laplace, 
and  will  show  results  in  the  corporeal 
energy  of  this  contemptible  insect  which 
will  throw  Professor  Mayer  and  his  ‘VJV’ 
additional  “density”  completely  into  the 
shade.  I propose  to  use  nothing  in  this 
analysis  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  position 
except  substantial  and  unquestioned  fig- 
ures and  facts, mostly  furnished  by  himself. 

The  reader,  I trust,  has  not  forgotten 
the  emphatic  citations  from  the  Lectures 
on  Sound,  quoted  a few  pages  back,  in 
which  this  learned  physicist  explicitly  tells 
us  that  the  “heat”  generated  by  the  prop- 
agation of  a sonorous  wave  through  the 
air,  adds  about  “one  sixth”  to  the  velocity 
of  such  sound,  and  thus  accounts  for  the 
discrepancy  of  174  feet  a second  discov- 
ered by  Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

This  heat  solution  of  Laplace,  it  must 
not  be  overlooked,  is  a vital  feature  of  the 
wave-theory  of  sound;  for,  without  this 
formulated  augmentation  of  temperature 
by  the  passage  of  the  wave  itself  in 
squeezing  the  air  into  a “condensation,” 
the  theory  confessedly  falls  to  the  ground, 
since  the  observed  velocity  of  sound  con- 
tradicts it  by  174  feet  a second,  as  proved 
by  Newton,  and  whose  calculation  all 
physicists  admit  to  be  correct.  It  there- 
fore becomes  essential  to  the  existence  of 
the  current  hypothesis  of  sound  that  the 
solution  invented  by  Laplace  should  pass 
the  ordeal  of  this  stridulation,  or  otherwise 
the  bottom  falls  out  of  the  theory  which 
it  professes  to  rescue  from  the  fatal  figures 
of  Newton. 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


138 


The  resort  to  heat  by  Laplace,  in  order 
to  add  to  the  elasticity  of  ihe  air  and  thus 
increase  the  velocity  of  sonorous  propaga- 
tion, grew  out  of  the  observed  fact  that 
the  general  augmentation  of  the  tempera- 
ture of  a mass  of  atmosphere — as,  for  in- 
stance, by  the  action  of  the  sun — increases 
its  elasticity,  and  thus  adds  to  the  velocity 
of  sound  passing  through  it.  Thus,  sound 
is  known  to  travel  about  100  feet  a second 
faster  in  the  heat  of  summer  than  in  the 
severest  cold  of  winter,  owing  solely  to 
the  difference  in  temperature.  I will  here 
requote  one  of  the  passages  referred  to, 
that  its  teaching  may  be  fresh  before  the 
mind  of  the  reader: — 

‘‘This  change  of  temperature  produced  by  the 
passage  of  the  sound-wave  itself  , virtually  augments 
the  elasticity  of  the  air,  and  makes  the  velocity  of 
sound  about  one  sixth  greater  than  it  would  be  if 
there  were  no  change  of  temperature." — Lectures  on 
Sound,  p.  46. 

It  is  impossible  to  misunderstand  the 
general  bearing  of  this  statement,  namely, 
that  the  effect  of  a sound  in  passing 
through  the  atmosphere  is  to  squeeze  its 
particles  into  condensations,  and  thus  gen- 
erate heat  enough  to  add  “one  sixth”  to 
the  velocity  of  sound,  and  make  up  this 
deficiency  of  174  feet  a second.  Hence, 
it  follows,  as  the  sound  of  the  locust  travels 
with  the  same  velocity  as  any  other  sound, 
it  must  also  generate  the  same  quantity  of 
heat  by  the  compression  of  the  air,  or 
otherwise  the  tone  of  this  stridulation 
would  fall  short  of  the  uniform  velocity 
of  sound. 

Now,  on  this  universal  assumption  of 
physicists  and  the  unquestioned  teaching 
of  the  wave-theory,  that  the  passage  of  a 
sound-wave  through  the  air  augments  the 
temperature  of  the  compressed  half  of  such 
wave  sufficient  to  add  174  feet  a second 
to  its  velocity,  is  it  possible  to  arrive  at 
the  exact  number  of  degrees  of  heat  thus 


required  to  produce  such  augmentation? 
Is  it,  then,  possible  to  ascertain  the  exact 
amount  of  compression  necessary  to  gen- 
erate this  quantity  of  heat?  And,  finally, 
can  we  not  then  arrive  determinately  at 
the  physical  strength  of  the  insect  which 
produces  a pressure  sufficient  to  generate 
that  amount  of  heat?  I assume  that  all 
these  conditions  are  possible,  and  that 
Professor  Tyndall  himself  gives  us  the 
figures,  in  the  most  concise  language,  by 
which  at  least  a part  of  the  facts  can  be 
determined,  while  he  gives  us  a sure  clue 
to  the  remainder.  He  says: — 

“At  a temperature  of  half  a degree  above  the 
freezing  point  of  water  the  velocity  is  1,089  feet  a 
second;  at  a temperature  of  26.6  degrees  it  is  1,140 
feet  a second,  or  a difference  of  51  feet  for  26  de- 
grees, that  is  to  say,  an  augmentation  of  velocity  of 
about  two  feet  for  every  single  degree  centigrade." — 
Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  25. 

No  one  can  misunderstand  this.  Hence, 
in  order  to  add  “one  sixth,”  or  174  feet  a 
second,  to  the  velocity  of  sound,  the  locust 
must  necessarily  generate  sufficient  heat 
to  raise  the  temperature  of  the  condensed 
half  of  its  sound-waves  87  degrees  cent., 
which  is  half  of  174  ieet, or  t7vo  feet  velocity 
“for  every  single  degree  centigrade.” 

Here,  then,  we  have  no  difficulty  in 
gradually  approaching  the  solution  of  the 
problem  for  which  we  set  out,  namely,  to 
ascertain  from  Professor  Tyndall  the  phys- 
ical strength  of  this  locust,  according  to 
the  wave-theory,  in  so  compressing  four 
cubic  miles  of  atmosphere,  or  at  least  the 
one  half  of  it,  as  to  raise  its  temperature 
87  degrees,  or  one  degree  centigrade  for 
each  two  feet  of  velocity  thus  added. 

It  only  remains  now  to  ascertain  what 
amount  of  compression  or  mechanical 
squeezing  force  must  be  exerted  upon  these 
four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  to  raise 
the  temperature  of  one  half  of  its  mass 
87  degrees,  or  enough  to  add  174  feet  a 
second  to  the  velocity  of  sound;  for,  it 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


139 


must  not  be  overlooked  that  one  half  only 
of  the  air  is  heated  above  the  normal  tem- 
perature by  this  squeezing  process,  while 
the  other  half  is  just  as  much  depressed 
by  the  rarefactions.  Hence,  in  estimating 
the  amount  of  heat  the  sound  of  the  locust 
generates,  we  must  be  careful  to  confine 
our  calculation  to  one  half  of  the  mass  of 
air  permeated  by  the  stridulation,  or  other- 
wise we  might  unintentionally  do  injustice 
to  this  carefully  formulated  and  purely 
scientific  theory! 

But  I am  obliged  here  to  digress  a little 
from  the  main  inquiry,  as  to  the  physical 
strength  of  the  locust  according  to  the 
facts  and  figures  of  Professor  Tyndall, 
though  I will  soon  return  with  an  impor- 
tant collateral  fact  somewhat  elucidated 
by  the  digression. 

I acknowledge  that  it  will  seem  a little 
queer  to  the  unscientific  reader  how  the 
velocity  of  sound  can  be  increased  by  the 
heat  of  the  “ condensations,"  when  the  “as- 
sociated rarefactions"  are  just  as  much 
colder  as  the  condensed  portion  is  hotter , 
since  the  one  would  seem  naturally  to 
retard  the  sound-pulse  as  much  as  the 
other  could  accelerate  it.  This,  however, 
is  a small-sized  problem  to  the  wave- 
theory  compared  to  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties it  is  obliged  to  encounter,  as  the  reader 
no  doubt  begins  to  realize.  Professor 
Tyndall  appreciates  this  difficulty,  and 
tries  to  parry  it  in  his  explanation  of  La- 
place’s law.  He  admits  if  the  air  were 
permanently  parcelled  off  into  strata  alter- 
nately hot  and  cold,  in  the  same  manner  as 
it  is  moulded  and  divided  up  by  a sound- 
pulse  into  condensations  and  rarefactions, 
that  an  extraneous  sound  passing  through 
these  hot  and  cold  layers  would  receive 
no  augmentation  of  velocity. 

How,  then,  the  common  sense  of  the 
reader  would  naturally  prompt  him  to  ask, 
does  the  law  of  Laplace  make  a sound 


travel  any  faster  on  account  of  this  heat 
and  this  cold,  the  one  a stand-off  to  the 
other,  and  both  equally  balanced  in  the 
“condensations  and  rarefactions”?  It  is 
not  at  all  clear  to  the  writer  how  this  can 
take  place,  even  with  Professor  Tyndall’s 
explanation  before  him,  even  supposing 
such  condensations,  &c.,  actually  to  exist, 
for  a very  definite  reason,  which  will  soon 
be  given ; but  the  explanation  given  by 
the  theory  amounts  to  about  this:  The 
condensed  half  of  the  wave  being  hotter 
than  the  normal  air  increases  the  elasticity 
and  augments  the  spring-force  of  this  con- 
densed portion  of  the  atmosphere,  which 
gives  greater  velocity  to  the  air-particles 
in  their  oscillations  to  and  fro ; while  the 
rarefaction, being  colder, has  less  elasticity, 
and  thus  withdraws  resistance  or  opposing 
spring-force  to  the  air-particles  as  they  are 
driven  backward  from  the  condensation. 
In  this  way  the  velocity  of  the  particles  is 
increased  both  by  the  heat  and  the  cold. 
The  hypothesis  of  Laplace  is  surely  as  ac- 
commodating as  one  could  ask. 

The  whole  matter,  however,  is  purely 
chimerical  and  absurd,  since  both  Profes- 
sors Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  have  told  us 
that  the  actual  distance  the  air-particles 
travel  in  these  oscillations  to  and  fro  must 
necessarily  be  almost  infinitesimally  small, 
possibly  not  the  hundredth  or  the  five 
hundredth  part  of  an  inch.  To  make  these 
hypothetic  oscillations  of  the  air-particles 
to  and  fro  amount  to  anything  appreciable 
in  the  generation  of  heat  and  cold,  which 
must  be  the  case  in  adding  174  feet  a sec- 
ond to  the  velocity  of  sound,  they  must 
necessarily  travel  more  than  an  infinitesi- 
mal distance.  And  here  is  where  the 
theory  contradicts  and  annihilates  itself 
utterly,  by  teaching  in  the  most  explicit 
language  that  the  air-particles  do  travel  a 
long  and  measurable  distance  to  and  fro, 
— that  the  condensations  and  rarefactions 


140 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


are  actually  produced  by  the  travel  of  the 
air-particles  — first  forward,  causing  the 
compression , while  leaving  a partial  vacu- 
um which  becomes  the  rarefaction,  and 
then  returning,  which  again  produces  a 
condensation  in  the  space  just  occupied 
by  the  rarefaction, — thus  alternately  con- 
verting the  same  air-particles  into  conden- 
sations and  rarefactions  by  traveling  the 
entire  distance  back  and  forth  from  rarefac- 
tion  to  condensation , and  vice  versa.  The 
language  of  Professor  Tyndall  can  leave 
no  doubt  on  this  matter: — 

“As  the  pulse  advances  it  squeezes  the  particles 
of  air  together.” 

“You  ought  to  see  mentally  the  air-particles 
w hen  urged  outwards  by  the  explosion  of  our  bal- 
loon crowding  closely  together;  but  immediately  be- 
hind this  condensation  [Mark  it,  the  “condensa- 
tion” is  caused  by  the  travel  of  the  air-particles  in 
being  “urged  outwards”  and  “ crowding  closely  to- 
gether,”]  you  ought  to  see  the  particles  separated 
more  widely  apart.  You  ought,  in  short,  to  be  able 
to  seize  the  conception  that  a sonorous  wave  con- 
sists of  two  portions,  in  one  of  which  the  air  is  more 
dense  and  in  the  other  of  which  it  is  less  dense  than 
usual.” 

“Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a harp-string  vi- 
brating to  and  fro ; it  advances,  and  causes  the 
particles  of  air  in  front  of  it  to  crowd  together , thus 
p7'oducing  a condensation  of  the  air.  It  retreats, 
and  the  air-particles  behind  it  separate  more  widely, 
thus  producing  a rarefaction  of  the  air.” — Lectures 
on  Sound,  pp.  5,  28. — Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion, 
p.  225. 

Thus,  all  the  way  through  the  writings 
of  this  physicist  the  condensation  of  the  air 
is  caused  by  the  travel  of  the  air-particles, 
while  the  rarefaction  is  produced  by  the 
same  travel  in  leaving  a partial  vacuum; 
and,  as  the  same  atmospheric  space  which 
is  now  the  condensation  instantly  becomes 
the  rarefaction,  and  vice  versa , it  follows 
irresistibly  that  there  is  no  way  of  creating 
alternate  rarefactions  and  condensations 
in  the  same  mass  of  air  every  time  a wave 
passes  except  by  the  same  air-particles  travel- 
ing bach  and  forth  the  entire  distance  from 


rarefaction  to  condensation , and  vice  versa, 
as  the  two  change  places. 

Let  it  thus  be  remembered  that  the  dis- 
tance the  air-particles  travel  in  producing 
these  supposed  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions can  not  be  infinitesimal,  if  there  is 
any  truth  in  the  theory, because  their  travel 
to  and  fro  creates  these  condensations  and 
rarefactions,  and  hence  they  are  obliged 
to  pass  the  whole  distance  thus  signified, 
which  is  simply  half  a wave-length,  as  is 
perfectly  plain. 

Is  it  not,  then,  clearly  manifest  from  the 
foregoing  quotations  that  there  can  be  no 
condensation  of  the  atmosphere  unless  the 
air-particles  themselves  travel,  and  thus 
crowd  and  squeeze  together  as  far  as  the 
condensation  extends,  in  order  to  produce 
it?  I have  already  shown,  in  various  ways, 
that  there  is  no  spring-force  in  the  air  by 
which  a pulse  can  be  driven  a single  inch 
beyond  the  actual  travel  of  the  air-particles 
themselves,  owing  to  the  exceedingly  slow 
motion  of  the  fork  or  string  and  to  the 
extreme  mobility  of  the  air,  neither  of 
which  seems  ever  to  have  entered  the 
minds  of  these  savants. 

Now,  what  is  the  distance,  according  to 
the  wave-theory,  which  these  air-particles 
have  to  travel  in  order  to  pass  from  the 
rarefaction  into  the  condensation  ? I have 
said  it  must  be  half  a wave-length,  of  course. 
Professor  Tyndall  says' — 

“The  length  of  a wave  is  measured  from  the 
centre  of  one  condensation  to  the  centre  of  the  next 
one.”  [See  list  of  quotations,  page  79.] 

From  the  middle  of  a rarefaction,  there- 
fore, to  the  middle  of  a condensation  is 
half  a wave-length.  It  is  thus  a simple 
matter  to  determine  the  actual  distance 
the  air-particles  oscillate  “to  and  fro”  in 
squeezing  the  air  together,  and  thus  form- 
ing these  “condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions.” 

The  wave-length  of  a sound  depends 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


141 


on  its  pitch,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
on  the  number  of  waves  per  second  sent 
off  from  the  sounding  body.  If  it  is  a very 
high  sound,  like  that  of  the  high  D of  the 
piccolo  flute  (4,752  vibrations  a second), 
the  length  of  the  wave  is  less  than  three 
inches , as  can  be  seen  by  dividing  the 
number  of  vibrations  as  above  into  the 
velocity  of  sound,  or  1120  feet  a second; 
whereas,  the  lowest  tone  of  the  organ,  as 
stated  by  Professor  Blacerna  in  his  recent 
work  on  sound,  has  16  vibrations  to  the 
second,  and  a consequent  wave-length  of 
70  feet!  It  thus  follows  that  in  the  sound 
of  such  an  organ-pipe  the  air-particles  are 
obliged  to  travel  35  feet  and  back  16  times 
each  second,  in  order  to  pass  from  the 
space  occupied  by  the  center  of  the  rare- 
faction to  the  center  of  the  condensation 
and  back.  They  would  thus  move  with  a 
velocity  in  one  direction  of  560  feet  a 
second,  or  at  the  rate  of  381  miles  an 
hour,  which  would  produce  a tornado  of 
more  than  double  the  velocity  necessary 
to  sweep  a village  into  ruins!  If  there 
was  the  least  truth  in  the  wave-theory,  the 
sound  of  a church-organ  should  get  up  a 
cyclone  which  would  blow  a cathedral 
into  atoms! 

I do  not  propose  to  misrepresent  these 
learned  physicists  in  the  least  in  stating 
the  legitimate  and  preposterous  effects  of 
the  wave-theory.  In  fact,  it  is  difficult 
to  misrepresent  the  theory,  say  what  you 
will  about  it,  for,  in  some  of  its  contradic- 
tory aspects  it  will  be  sure  to  justify  you. 
I admit  frankly  that  it  would  seem  abso- 
lutely to  defy  belief  that  any  pretended 
Scientific  theory  should  teach  in  this  nine- 
teenth century  such  a transparent  impos- 
sibility as  that  the  stridulation  of  an  insect 
should  shake  four  cubic  miles  of  atmos- 
phere into  condensations  and  rarefactions, 
and  so  compress  one  half  of  it  by  squeez- 
ing its  particles  together  as  to  generate 


this  calculated  heat  of  Laplace  sufficient 
to  add  174  feet  a second  to  the  velocity 
of  sound;  and  I would  not  at  all  blame 
the  reader  if  he  should  throw  down  this 
volume,  charging  me  with  the  foulest  mis- 
representation of  these  eminent  scientists, 
unless  I should  continue  to  demonstrate 
my  assertions  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt  by  quotations  from  their  works 
couched  in  such  explicit  and  unmistakable 
language  as  to  render  misconstruction  im- 
possible. 

I admit  the  justice  and  fairness  of  this 
course  on  the  part  of  the  reader,  and  shall 
therefore  continue  to  fortify  every  position 
I take,  so  that  in  the  end  the  learned  au- 
thorities from  whom  I quote  and  whose 
theory  I am  reviewing  shall  have  no  reason 
to  complain.  Professor  Tyndall  says,  and 
I wish  the  reader  to  carefully  note  it: — 

“All  that  you  have  heard  regarding  the  trans- 
mission of  a sonorous  pulse  through  the  air,  is,  I 
trust,  still  fresh  in  your  minds.  As  the  pulse  ad- 
vances it  squeezes  the  particles  of  air  together,  and 
two  results  follow  from  this  compression  of  the  air. 
Firstly,  its  elasticity  is  augmented  through  the  mere 
augmentation  of  its  density.  Secondly,  its  elasticity 
is  augmented  by  the  heat  developed  by  compression. 

. . . Over  and  above,  then,  the  elasticity  involved 
in  Newton’s  calculation,  we  have  an  additional 
elasticity  due  to  the  changes  of  temperature  produced 
by  the  sound  itself.  When  both  are  taken  into  the 
account,  the  calculated  and  the  observed  velocity 
agree  perfectly.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  28. 

This  is  too  plain  to  require  comment. 
But  here,  remember,  as  I have  already  in- 
timated, Professor  Tyndall  does  not  teach 
that  the  average  temperature  of  the  atmos- 
phere is  changed  in  the  least  by  this  com- 
pression or  squeezing  of  the  air-particles 
together.  He  carefully  guards  against 
such  a result  as  too  superficially  absurd  to 
be  taught  even  by  the  wave-theory.  He 
has  provided  against  this  in  a score  of 
places  by  reiterating,  as  already  quoted  so 
often,  that  each  condensation  of  a sound- 
wave is  accompanied  by  a counterbalance 


142 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


in  the  shape  of  an  “associated  rarefaction,” 
and  hence  that  in  the  latter  the  tempera- 
ture is  as  much  depressed  as  it  is  raised 
in  the  former,  thus  keeping  the  average 
temperature  the  same.  He  remarks: — 

“The  average  temperature  of  the  air  is  un- 
changed by  the  waves  of  sound.  We  can  not  have 
a condensed  pulse  without  having  a rarefied  one 
associated  with  it.  But  in  the  rarefaction  the  tem- 
perature is  as  much  lowered  as  it  is  raised  in  the 
condensation.” — Lectures  on  Sound , p.  29. 

This  really  seemed  to  be  quite  a neces- 
sary precaution  on  the  part  of  the  wave- 
theory,  or  otherwise  it  would  be  impossible 
for  a katydid  to  stridulate  without  making 
the  surrounding  atmosphere  so  nearly  in- 
candescent that  nobody  could  live  in  it! 
Hence,  the  necessity  of  rarefactions  as 
cold  as  the  condensations  are  hot. 

But  what  does  this  precaution  amount 
to,  after  all?  We  here  have  it  distinctly 
taught  that  every  particle  of  the  air  through 
which  a sound  passes  is  first  heated  to  this 
very  temperature  requisite  to  add  174  feet 
a second  to  the  velocity  of  sound  before 
it  can  be  cooled  by  the  associated  or  suc- 
ceeding “rarefaction” ! And  I have  just 
shown,  from  Professor  Tyndall,  that,  in 
heating  a given  mass  of  the  atmosphere 
ordinarily,  as  by  the  effects  of  the  sun,  the 
same  as  if  the  whole  mass  were  a conden- 
sation, it  must  actually  be  raised  87  degrees 
centigrade  (156.6  degrees  Fahrenheit)  to 
add  the  174  feet  a second,  or  at  the  rate  of 
one  degree  to  each  two  feet  of  additional 
velocity!  Thus,  one  half  of  the  entire  at- 
mosphere throughout  the  four  cubic  miles 
is  heated  all  the  time  and  the  other  half 
cooled  all  the  time  while  the  locust  is 
stridulating,  though  there  is  a transition 
and  a transference  of  the  heat  from  one 
to  the  other  half  constantly  taking  place, 
according  to  the  wave-theory.  Yet  this 
assuredly  can  not  make  the  amount  of 
heat  and  compression  less  than  one  half 


what  it  would  be  if  both  halves  of  the  at- 
mosphere were  heated  at  once. 

But  here  I meet  with  a difficulty  in  my 
calculation,  and  the  only  one  I have  yet 
encountered.  Professor  Tyndall  does  not 
tell  us  what  amount  of  “ pressure ” to  the 
square  inch  is  necessary  to  generate  a 
definite  amount  of  heat,  or  to  raise  the 
mercury  in  a centigrade  thermometer,  sav, 
one  degree.  This  was  a great  neglect,  and 
an  almost  unpardonable  oversight,  under 
the  circumstances.  He  explicitly  tells  us 
how  many  degrees  of  heat  it  takes  to  add 
a given  number  of  feet  per  second  to  the 
velocity  of  sound  when  the  whole  atmos- 
phere is  heated,  as  I have  already  quoted, 
namely,  87  degrees  centigrade  for  174  feet, 
or  one  degree  for  each  two  feet  of  velocity. 
He  is  also  very  careful  to  tell  us  that  the 
“condensation”  of  a sound-wave  really 
does  generate  the  requisite  heat,  by  squeez- 
ing  tJie  air-particles  together , to  add  these 
174  feet  a second.  But  he  there  stops, 
leaving  us  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  how 
much  this  pressure  actually  amounts  to  in 
pounds  and  ounces!  Had  he  told  us  this, 
we  should  be  able  to  know  all  about  the 
strength  of  the  locust  in  one  minute. 

During  his  lectures  on  Heat  as  a Mode 
of  Motion-  (page  82,  first  edition),  he  shows 
how  much  weight  an  inch-column  of  air 
will  support  while  being  heated  up  to  any 
number  of  degrees,  and  thus  kept  at  con- 
stant volume,  without  any  change  in  its 
density.  But  this  is  a very  different  thing 
from  the  generation  of  heat  by  squeezing 
the  air-particles  together  and  thus  aug- 
menting its  density  as  well  as  its  elasticity , 
the  same  as  sound-waves  arc  claimed  to 
operate. 

Pie  even  goes  so  far  as  to  show  his  au- 
dience how  to  generate  this  heat  by  the 
compression  of  the  air  in  a glass  tube,  and 
actually  does  generate  heat  enough  to 
ignite  a piece  of  amadou  by  a quick  and 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


14  3 


powerful  motion  of  the  piston ! Still,  he 
remains  stoically  taciturn  upon  this  para- 
mount question  as  to  the  amount  of  pres- 
sure to  the  square  inch,  in  avoirdupois, 
which  would  be  required  to  raise  the  mer- 
cury, for  example,  a single  degree. 

This  is  the  very  thing,  above  all  others, 
he  should  have  attended  to  in  his  lecture, 
and  thus  have  enabled  his  hearers  and 
afterward  his  readers  to  form  some  sort 
of  an  estimate  of  the  mechanical  force 
exerted  to  send  off  a given  system  of 
sound-waves,  thus  to  produce  their  con- 
densations, and  thus  to  generate  the  re- 
quired heat  for  the  174  feet  a second  ad- 
ditional velocity,  according  to  the  formula 
of  Laplace. 

Professor  Mayer  was  not  afraid ! He 
pluckily  came  right  out  and  told  us  in  the 
plainest  vulgar  fractions  that  a given  sound 
in  passing  through  the  atmosphere  and 
producing  its  condensations  actually  in- 
creased the  “density”  of  the  “compressed 
half”  of  the  wave  “67V’  over  the  normal 
density  of  the  air,  which  left  it  a simple 
mathematical  problem  to  calculate  the 
physical  strength  of  the  locust  in  thus  in- 
creasing the  “density”  of  the  one  half  of 
four  cubic  miles,  which  we  have  readily 
found  to  be  5,000,000,000  tons!  But  it 
really  looks  as  if  Professor  Tyndall  was 
afraid.  If  he  had  known  how  much  mental 
anxiety  he  would  have  saved  the  writer  by 
giving  this  small  piece  of  information,  he 
would  surely  not  have  been  so  selfishly 
inconsiderate  as  to  withhold  it. 

Seriously,  why  was  it  that  Professor 
Tyndall  so  signally  neglected  to  give  this 
important  basis  of  calculation  while  dis- 
cussing the  very  question  where  it  would 
so  appropriately  have  come  in?  Either 
he  did  not  know  himself  how  much  pres- 
sure to  the  square  inch  of  air  was  neces- 
sary to  generate  one  degree  of  heat,  or 
else  he  knew  and  did  not  care  to  tell  his 


audience  and  readers!  To  suppose  that 
he  knew,  but  intentionally  suppressed  this 
important  piece  of  information,  at  this 
critical  juncture  of  his  course  of  lectures, 
when  he  could  so  easily  have  imparted 
the  valuable  intelligence  in  the  compass 
of  a single  short  sentence,  would  be  ex- 
tremely ungenerous.  I shall  therefore  as- 
sume that  he  did  not  know , and  had  not 
even  an  approximate  idea  as  to  the  physical 
pressure  it  takes  in  pounds  and  ounces  to 
raise  an  inch-column  of  air  one  degree 
centigrade,  even  when  the  air  is  confined 
within  a tube  so  that  it  can  not  exercise 
its  7nobility  and  get  out  of  the  way,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  inconceivable  difficulty  of  pro- 
ducing such  compression  in  the  free  air! 
I adopt  this  charitable  view,  on  the  sup- 
position that  had  he  been  aware  of  this 
mathematical  fact  he  might  have  spoiled 
a splendid  lecture  by  suddenly  discovering, 
on  imparting  the  information  to  his  au- 
dience,the  utter  baselessness  and  absurdity 
of  the  whole  wave-theory,  and  unceremo- 
niously have  left  the  platform  in  mortifi- 
cation and  disgust.  I am  sorry,  in  one 
sense,  that  the  thing  did  not  occur;  for, 
had  the  idea  flashed  across  his  mind  at 
that  stage  of  the  investigation,  being  but 
the  first  lecture  of  his  course,  and  had  the 
actual  physical  truth  of  the  matter  im- 
pressed itself  upon  him,  as  it  will  soon  be 
impressed  on  the  reader,  I have  faith 
enough  in  the  intrinsic  candor  of  the  man 
to  believe  he  would  have  at  once  aban- 
doned the  wave-theory  as  a monstrous 
scientific  fallacy;  and,  in  all  probability, 
the  writer  of  this  review  would  have  been 
spared  the  unpleasant  task  of  holding  up 
to  the  light  the  escapades  and  fiascos  of 
his  fellow-workers  in  science,  by  having 
his  labors  anticipated  in  a much  more 
elegant  and  accomplished  manner. 

I may  add  here,  in  extenuation  of  the 
manifest  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of 


144 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


this  eminent  lecturer,  that  I have  sought 
in  vain  among  my  scientific  friends  for  the 
same  information  as  to  the  amount  of 
pressure  to  the  square  inch  of  atmosphere 
which  would  be  necessary  to  raise  the 
temperature  one  degree, while  I was  equal- 
ly unsuccessful  in  consulting  authorities, 
after  examining  all  the  works  on  pneu- 
matics within  my  reach.  I was  at  last 
compelled,  as  a dernier  ressort,  to  construct 
an  instrument  especially  adapted  to  the 
purpose  of  testing  this  important  scientific 
question, — important  both  to  me  in  the 
present  discussion,  and  to  the  future  status 
of  the  wave-theory,  as  well  as  to  the  cause 
of  science  generally.  I will  briefly  describe 
the  instrument,  which  is  exceedingly  sim- 
ple, and  then  give  the  result  of  the  experi- 
ment. 

It  consists  of  a glass  tube  of  any  conve- 
nient length,  so  it  is  long  enough  to  admit 
a small  thermometer  at  the  bottom,  and 
of  a diameter  equal  to  one  square-inch 
cross-section,  into  which  a piston  is  accu- 
rately fitted  so  as  to  work  air-tight,  by 
means  of  which  the  atmosphere  may  be 
compressed  to  any  required  extent.  In 
making  the  test  I had  only  to  drop  the 
thermometer  into  the  tube,  which,  being 
wholly  inclosed  within  the  compressed  air 
would  sensitively  respond  to  the  gener- 
ated heat  for  any  given  movement  of  the 
piston. 

The  result  was  that  on  suddenly  pushing 
down  the  piston  a distance  equal  to  one 
half  the  depth  of  the  tube  (thus  giving  the 
other  half  of  the  column  two  atmospheres, 
or  a pressure  around  the  thermometer  of 
about  15  pounds  to  the  square  inch),  the 
mercury  indicated  an  elevation  of  about 
two  and  a half  degrees  centigrade;  but  as 
the  radiation  of  the  heat  through  the  sur- 
rounding tube  would  be  probably  equal 
to  its  action  on  the  glass  of  the  thermom- 
eter, I called  the  heat  actually  generated 


five  degrees  by  a pressure  of  15  pounds 
to  the  square  inch,  in  order  to  do  ample 
justice  to  the  wave-theory. 

We  thus  experimentally  and  mathemat- 
ically supply  the  deficiency  caused  by  the 
inexcusable  neglect  of  Professor  Tyndall, 
and  arrive,  at  least,  at  the  approximate 
pressure  in  pounds  necessary  to  raise  the 
temperature  of  the  condensed  half  of  a 
supposed  air-wave  87  degrees  centigrade, 
which  we  are  assured  by  Professor  Tyndall 
is  the  augmentation  required  to  add  174 
feet  a second  to  the  velocity  of  sound. 
Of  course,  this  is  on  the  basis  that  each 
supposed  air-wave  is  inclosed  within  a 
tube  and  acted  on  by  a piston. 

The  question  may  be  simply  stated  as 
follows:  If  a cubic  inch  of  air  requires 
15  pounds  pressure  (reducing  it  to  one 
half  its  bulk)  to  raise  its  temperature  5 de- 
grees, how  much  pressure  will  it  require 
to  raise  the  temperature  of  the  same  cubic 
inch  of  air  87  degrees?  The  result  can  be 
obtained  thus : 87  5 = 1 7 (rejecting  frac- 

tions) X 15  = 255  pounds.  Thus,  if  there 
is  any  truth  in  the  wave-theory,  we  have 
in  plain  figures  arrived  at  the  astounding 
fact  that  a sound  of  any  kind  in  passing 
through  the  air  must  produce  an  atmos- 
pheric pressure  in  the  condensed  portion 
of  its  waves  of  255  pounds  to  each  cubic 
inch  in  order  to  raise  its  temperature  87 
degrees  centigrade,  which,  as  we  learn,  is 
necessary  to  add  174  feet  a second  to  the 
velocity  of  sound,  and  thus  save  the  wave- 
hypothesis  from  utter  destruction  at  the 
hands  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton! 

In  this  simple  experiment  we  have  com- 
pletely remedied  the  defect  of  Professor 
Tyndall’s  lecture  by  getting  at  the  approx- 
imate if  not  actual  pressure  produced  on 
the  condensed  half  of  the  sound-wave  in 
order  to  generate  this  required  heat  of 
Laplace,  the  very  point  above  all  others 
he  should  have  been  particular  about 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


145 


explaining,  so  that  the  unscientific  reader 
might  be  able  to  ascertain  exactly  how 
many  tons  pressure  upon  the  atmosphere 
of  his  sleeping  apartment  a mosquito , for 
example,  exerts  by  serenading  him  with 
its  hateful  music!  The  Professor  ought 
to  thank  the  writer  for  correcting  this  im- 
portant defect  in  his  book,  and  for  thus 
having  furnished  him  the  proper  scientific 
data  for  his  next  course  of  lectures  on 
sound.  For,  as  all  sounds  travel  174  feet 
a second  faster  than  they  would  if  there 
were  no  heat  generated  by  the  condensa- 
tions , or  if  there  were  no  squeezing  of  the 
air-particles  together  by  the  passage  of  the 
sound-wave,  it  follows  that  the  mosquito’s 
sound  is  likewise  augmented  in  velocity 
in  the  same  way  and  to  the  same  degree ; 
and,  as  we  have  just  found  that  it  takes 
255  pounds  pressure  on  a cubic  inch  of 
air  to  raise  its  temperature  87  degrees  (the 
required  heat  for  174  feet  additional  ve- 
locity), any  reader  can  easily  make  the 
necessary  calculation  as  to  the  absolute 
mechanical  pressure  which  a mosquito 
must  produce  throughout  a room  of  given 
dimensions  in  order  to  generate  sufficient 
heat  to  thus  add  “one  sixth”  to  the  ve- 
locity of  its  sound. 

Let  us  see.  As  our  experiment  demon- 
strates 255  pounds  pressure  to  the  cubic 
inch  as  the  mechanical  force  necessary  to 
generate  the  required  87  degrees  of  heat, 
it  follows,  as  a mosquito  can  be  heard  in 
a still  night  throughout  a room  ten  feet 
square,  it  must  therefore  exert  this  amount 
of  pressure  on  one  half  of  all  the  cubic 
inches  of  air  in  the  room,  since  one  half 
is  compressed  while  the  other  half  is  rare- 
fied. The  room  contains  1,728,000  cubic 
inches,  the  compressed  half  of  which 
(864,000)  multipled  by  255  pounds  pres- 
sure makes  the  mechanical  energy  of  this 
insect  220,000,000  pounds,  or  a physical 
force  exerted  on  the  atmosphere  of  the 


room  by  the  motion  of  its  wings  of  one 
hundred  and  ten  thousand  tons!  No  advo- 
cate of  the  wave-theory  can  successfully 
contradict  this  result. 

The  reader  need  not  take  these  figures 
on  my  authority,  but  can  make  the  calcu- 
lation for  himself,  taking  only  the  undis- 
puted data  furnished  by  the  authoritative 
physicists  from  whom  I have  quoted,  in 
connection  with  the  amount  of  pressure 
necessary  to  raise  the  temperature  of  air 
87  degrees,  as  determined  by  scientific  ex- 
periment. He  will  thus  form  an  accurate 
and  comprehensive  idea  of  the  physical 
strength  of  this  dipteroics  proboscidian , ac- 
cording to  this  highly  philosophical  theory 
which  has  stood  “unshaken”  for  hundreds 
if  not  thousands  of  years! 

Applying  the  same  data  to  the  sound 
of  the  locust , which  permeates  four  cubic 
miles  of  air  instead  of  that  contained  in 
an  ordinary  bedroom,  the  reader  at  once 
sees  the  almost  infinitely  ridiculous  and 
tantalizing  character  of  the  result.  Yet, 
as  preposterous  as  it  is,  it  is  no  more  so 
than  the  wave-theory,  which  furnishes  the 
undeniable  basis  for  the  calculation.  Pro- 
fessor Mayer’s  estimate,  based  on  the  im- 
portant discovery  which  he  announces, 
namely,  that  sound  compresses  one  half 
of  the  wave  enough  to  add  “c4»”  to  the 
normal  “density”  of  the  atmosphere,  only 
puts  the  physical  strength  of  this  insect 
at  the  modest  amount  of  five  thousand  mil- 
lion  tons j whereas  the  calculation  of  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall,  based  on  the  estimated 
heat  which  this  pressure  must  necessarily 
generate  to  meet  the  requirements  of  La- 
place, throws  these  figures  utterly  into  the 
shade,  making  the  physical  energy  of  the 
locust  equal  to  132,566,207,938,560,000 
pounds,  or,  in  round  numbers,  66,000,000,- 
000,000  tons,  being  exactly  thirteen  thou- 
sand two  hundred  and  fifty-six  times  greater 
in  mechanical  effect  than  the  estimate  of 


146 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


his  American  collaborator!  These  learned 
physicists  can  settle  the  matter  between 
them. 

But  here  I imagine  the  reader  saying: 
“Although  you  have  shown  from  the  high- 
est authorities  that  the  compressed  half  of 
the  atmosphere  through  which  a sound 
passes  is  really  raised  in  temperature , ac- 
cording to  the  wave-hypothesis,  by  the 
squeezing  of  the  air-particles  together;  and 
although  you  have  proved  beyond  ques- 
tion that  this  theory  teaches  as  one  of  its 
fundamental  principles  that  the  heat  thus 
generated  is  necessary  to  make  up  the  dis- 
crepancy of  174  feet  a second  in  the  calcu- 
lated velocity  of  sound,  as  discovered  by 
Sir  Isaac  Newton;  and  notwithstanding 
you  have  shown  from  Professor  Tyndall 
that  where  the  atmosphere  is  warmed  in 
a mass,  as  by  the  action  of  the  sun,  it  re- 
quires one  degree  centigrade  for  every 
two  feet  velocity  added,  or  87  degrees  for 
this  deficit  of  174  feet;  — still,  are  you  not 
mistaken  about  applying  the  same  ratio  of 
augmented  heat  to  the  compressed  half  of 
the  sound-wave?  Is  it  not  possible  that  a 
much  less  elevation  of  temperature  than 
87  degrees  would  suffice  for  heating  these 
condensations,  and  making  good  this  de- 
ficiency, according  to  the  formula  of  La- 
place and  the  solution  of  the  problem  as 
expounded  by  Professor  Tyndall?” 

I am  willing,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment, to  concede  the  possible  correctness 
of  this  objection,  and  to  agree  that  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  does  not  say  that  the  same 
degree  of  augmentation  is  requisite  in 
both  cases.  Yet  reason  certainly  tells  us 
that  if  there  is  any  difference  at  all,  the 
compressed  half  of  the  sound-wave  should 
require  the  greater  augmentation  of  heat 
to  affect  this  174  feet  velocity,  since  it  is 
always  found  in  close  juxtaposition  with 
a chilled  “rarefaction,”  which  Professor 
Tyndall  assures  us  is  just  as  much  colder 


than  the  normal  atmosphere  as  the  “con- 
densation” is  hotter! 

The  bare  fact  that  this  learned  scientist, 
in  all  this  discussion  of  Laplace’s  solution, 
occupying  some  eight  or  ten  pages  of  his 
book,  does  not  say  a single  word  as  to  how 
many  degrees  of  heat  these  condensations 
generate  which  adds  174  feet  a second  to 
the  velocity  of  sound,  in  connection  with 
the  important  consideration  that  he  dis- 
tinctly teaches  in  other  places  that  the  air, 
if  heated  by  the  sun,  would  require  87  de- 
grees centigrade  to  make  up  this  deficit 
of  174  feet  a second,  is  a sufficient  proof 
to  every  fair-minded  man  that  he  intended 
the  reader  to  understand — if  he  knew  him- 
self, and  if  he  intended  to  convey  any 
definite  idea  on  the  subject — that  the 
amounts  of  heat  requisite  for  a given  aug- 
mentation of  velocity  would  be  the  same 
in  both  cases,  or  otherwise  he  would  have 
pointed  out  the  difference  between  them. 
Will  not  the  intelligent  judgment  of  every 
unbiassed  physicist  acquiesce  in  this  as 
the  only  logical  conclusion?  On  the  sup- 
position that  Professor  Tyndall  really  pos- 
sessed the  knowledge,  the  fact  of  his 
silence  on  this  vital  question  as  to  the 
exact  amount  of  heat  generated  in  the 
compressed  half  of  a sound-wave  can  be 
only  accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  he 
wished  and  expected  us  to  understand 
that  the  “condensation”  required  the  same 
augmentation  of  heat  by  pressure  to  add 
174  feet  a second  that  the  entire  atmos- 
phere would  require  if  heated  by  the  sun, 
as  he  had  so  fully  explained  in  other 
places. 

But  I am  willing  to  be  accommodating 
to  any  reasonable  extent,  since  I feel  en- 
tirely able  to  make  any  concessions  which 
a candid  physicist  would  be  willing  to  ask, 
and  still  annihilate  this  preposterous  for- 
mula of  Laplace,  so  conspicuously  put  for- 
ward and  advocated  by  Professor  Tyndall 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


147 


as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  the  wave- 
theory,  since  without  these  “condensations 
and  tfieir  associated  rarefactions,”  with 
their  resultant  heat  and  cold,  he  frequently 
gives  us  to  understand  that  sound-waves 
could  not  exist. 

I am  therefore  ready  to  suppose  that 
instead  of  the  compressed  portion  of  the 
sound-wave  being  raised  in  temperature 
87  degrees  with  a squeezing  force  of  255 
pounds  to  the  cubic  inch  in  order  to  add 
this  required  174  feet  velocity,  it  is  only 
necessary  that  it  should  be  raised  one  de- 
gree! I wonder  if  Professor  Tyndall  and 
my  doubting  reader  would  be  satisfied  with 
this  reduction?  If  not,  no  philosopher 
shall  excel  me  in  scientific  liberality,  and 
I will  therefore  concede,  to  oblige  this  hy- 
pothesis, that  the  augmentation  of  heat  in 
the  compressed  half  of  the  wave,  which 
adds  “one  sixth”  to  the  velocity  of  sound, 
instead  of  being  87  degrees,  as  it  ought  to 
be,  is  but  the  one  millionth  part  of  one  de- 
gree! Will  this  be  sufficient?  If  Professor 
Tyndall  were  present  and  should  require 
it,  I would  gladly  reduce  it  still  further, 
for  I am  certain  that  any  possible  reduc- 
tion he  would  be  willing  to  ask,  as  a physi- 
cist, would  still  make  the  solution  alto- 
gether too  hot  for  the  wave-theory! 

On  this  new  basis,  then,  that  the  one 
millionth  part  of  one  degree  is  all  the  heat 
there  is  contemplated  in  this  famed  solu- 
tion of  Laplace,  and  all  the  heat  there  is 
generated  in  these  boasted  “condensa- 
tions” of  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  and 
that  this  almost  inconceivably  minute  aug- 
mentation was  all  Professor  Tyndall  had 
in  his  mind  as  being  sufficient  to  add  “one 
sixth,”  or  174  feet  a second,  to  the  velocity 
of  sound  (which  is  entirely  insupposable 
on  its  very  face),  and  we  still  find,  by  in- 
controvertible figures,  that  the  locust  ex- 
erts on  the  atmosphere  permeated  by  its 
sound  a mechanical  pressure  of  seven  hun- 


dred and  fifty-eight  thousand  tons,  or  a phys- 
ical force  equal  to  that  of  all  the  locomo- 
tives in  the  United  States!  Are  physicists 
ready  to  accept  this  absolute  showing  of 
the  wave-theory  after  thus  modifying  the 
true  calculation  which  the  hypothesis  war- 
rants, by  1 eighty -seven  million  subdivisions? 

All  these  calculations,  as  before  inti- 
mated, are  based  on  the  mechanical  ex- 
periment of  generating  heat  by  compress- 
ing the  air  in  a tube  when  so  confined  that 
its  mobility  can  not  come  into  play.  If  I 
should  assert  that  the  same  movement  of 
the  piston  which  generates  five  degrees  of 
heat  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  tube,  would 
not,  if  made  in  the  open  air,  produce  the 
thousandth  part  of  one  degree  in  aug- 
mentation, or  one  5,000th  part  as  much, 
owing  to  the  mobility  of  the  atmosphere 
and  its  freedom  to  get  out  of  the  way  and 
thus  escape  compression,  I would  only 
assert  what  the  intuition  of  every  physicist 
would  indorse  as  undeniably  true.  If  this 
is  a correct  representation  of  the  matter, 
then  it  follows  that  the  foregoing  calcula- 
tions present  less  than  the  one  five  thou- 
sandth part  of  the  actual  absurdity  of  the 
wave-theory! 

These  are  not  misrepresentations,  nor 
are  they  even  exaggerations  of  this  unfor- 
tunate hypothesis.  Taking  any  of  the  as- 
sumed facts  put  forward  and  relied  on  by 
physicists  as  fundamental  to  this  theory, 
and  it  is  almost  impossible,  using  them  as 
a basis  of  calculation,  to  draw  any  deduc- 
tions or  employ  any  figures  which  will  ex- 
aggerate the  incongruity  of  the  hypothesis. 
It  is  therefore  extremely  difficult  to  do  the 
theory  injustice,  say  what  you  will  about 
it,  for,  when  looked  at  in  the  light  of  rea- 
son and  with  the  slightest  respect  for  the 
laws  of  mechanics  or  the  relation  sub- 
sisting between  mathematics  and  philos- 
ophy, the  supposition  that  an  insignificant 
insect,  by  moving  its  legs  in  the  free  air , 


148 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


can  actually  produce  such  an  atmospheric 
compression  as  to  generate  any  appreciable 
heat  at  all,  even  an  inch  around  it,  to  say 
nothing  of  so  augmenting  the  temperature 
throughout  four  cubic  miles  as  to  add  174 
feet  a second  to  the  velocity  of  sound,  be- 
comes too  infinitely  ridiculous  and  insane 
a supposition  to  admit  of  being  discussed 
with  any  degree  of  patience.  Yet,  under 
the  circumstances,  I have  tried  to  keep 

i ...  . 

| cool  even  while  battling  with  such  a scien- 
tific monstrosity,  since  the  theory  has  to 
be  discussed  and  its  foundationless  char- 
acter pointed  out,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it 
is  advocated  as  science  by  every  physicist 
who  has  written  on  the  subject,  taught  as 
science  in  our  schools  and  colleges,  and 
is  honestly  believed  in  as  science  by  the 
ablest  and  most  scrutinizing  intellects  of 
the  world.  Still,  with  all  my  efforts  to  the 
contrary,  when  seriously  controverting  such 
Mother-Goose  nonsense  under  the  disguise 
of  natural  philosophy,  I can  not  help  feel- 
ing at  times  an  indefinable  sensation  of 
disgust  mingled  with  astonishment.  I shall 
nevertheless  continue  on  in  the  work  of 
fighting  as  one  that  beateth  the  air,  per- 
haps as  much  to  the  disgust  of  modern 
physicists  as  to  myself.  For  the  reader 
must  be  aware,  unless  I have  been  guilty 
of  the  most  deliberate  and  barefaced  falsi- 
fication of  the  eminent  authorities  from 
whom  I have  quoted  (a  question  admitting 
of  easy  verification  or  disproof),  that  there 
is  no  possible  way  for  them  to  escape  the 
merited  condemnation  and  even  ridicule 
of  future  scientists  except  by  publicly  ac- 
knowledging themselves  mistaken,  and 
thus  summarily  renouncing  one  of  the 
most  transparent  fallacies  ever  taught  as 
science. 

Conclusive,  however,  as  have  been  the 
foregoing  arguments,  they  will  be  more 
than  paralleled  in  effectiveness  by  those 
soon  to  follow, — showing  that  in  number- 


less ways,  and  viewed  from  every  con- 
ceivable standpoint,  the  same  uniform  im- 
possibilities come  to  the  surface.  It  is  not 
possible,  in  fact,  to  look  at  this  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  wave-theory,  namely, 
that  a sound-pulse  is  constituted  of  an  at- 
mospheric “condensation  and  rarefaction,’’ 
— an  assumption,  by  the  way,  on  which 
the  entire  hypothesis  hinges, — without 
seeing  “absurdity”  written  all  over  it. 

As  one  illustration  of  what  I have  just 
said,  I would  name  the  fact  that  Professor 
Tyndall  distinctly  though  unwittingly 
teaches,  as  the  necessary  result  of  such  a 
“condensation  and  rarefaction,”  that  two 
unison  sounds  must  travel  together  with  con- 
siderably greater  velocity  than  either  o?ie  of 
than  'would  travel  alone!  He  teaches  this, 
as  I will  now  demonstrate,  because  the 
very  idea  of  a sound-wave,  constituted  of 
a condensation  and  rarefaction  of  the  air, 
involves  it ; and  as  both  Professors  T y ndall 
and  Helmholtz  tell  us  that  the  only  sound- 
wave possible  to  exist  consists  in  this  con- 
densation and  rarefaction  of  the  atmos- 
phere, as  already  quoted  (see  page  125), 
it  follows  that  the  above  palpable  contra- 
diction of  the  observed  velocity  of  sound 
turns  out  to  be  a feature  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  wave-theory.  Let  us  now 
examine  the  evidence  on  which  my  position 
is  based. 

In  the  first  place,  Professor  Tyndall  tells 
us  that  two  unison  sounds  traveling  to- 
gether, with  their  waves  coinciding , must 
positively  quadruple  their  loudness  by  quad- 
rupling their  condensations  and  rarefactions ; 
and  by  thus  making  these  characteristics 
fourfold , they  quadruple  the  amount  of 
heat  generated  in  the  compressed  portion 
of  the  wave  as  well  as  quadruple  the 
amount  of  cold  developed  in  the  rarefied 
portion.  And  as  I have  already  shown, 
from  both  Professor  Tyndall  and  Laplace, 
that  an  ordinary  sound  generates,  by  con- 


Chav.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


149 


densing  the  air,  heat  enough  to  add  174 
feet  a second  to  its  velocity,  then,  evident- 
ly, if  two  sounds  together  produce  four 
times  the  loudness  and  four  times  the  con- 
densation or  compression  of  the  air,  it  must 
generate  four  times  the  amount  of  heat  and 
cold,  and  consequently  must  add  four  times 
this  augmentation  of  velocity,  or,  in  other 
words,  must  add  four  times  174  feet  per 
second!  Is  not  this  unavoidable? — that 
is,  if  Professor  Tyndall  teaches,  as  I have 
asserted,  that  two  unison  sounds  produce 
four  times  the  condensation  of  the  air  that 
one  does? 

I now  invite  the  reader  to  the  proof, 
which  is  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood: — 

“It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  forks  may  so  vibrate 
that  the  condensations  of  the  one  shall  coincide  with 
the  condensations  of  the  other,  and  the  rarefactions 
of  the  one  with  the  rarefactions  of  the  other.  If 
this  is  the  case,  the  two  forks  will  assist  each  other. 
The  condensations  will  in  fact  become  more  con- 
densed and  the  rarefactions  more  rarefed,  and  as  it 
is  upon  the  difference  of  density  between  the  con- 
densation and  rarefaction  that  loudness  depends,  the 
two  forks,  thus  supporting  each  other,  will  produce 
a sound  of  greater  intensity  than  that  of  either  of 
them  vibrating  alone.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  258. 

This,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  exceedingly 
concise  and  to  the  point.  What  it  lacks 
in  positive  proof  will  soon  be  supplied. 
Mark,  however,  the  teaching  of  this  cita- 
tion. Two  unison  sounds  traveling  to- 
gether, so  that  condensations  coincide  with 
condensations  and  rarefactions  coincide  with 
rarefactions,  not  only  make  the  condensa- 
tions “more  condensed”  and  the  rarefac- 
tions “more  rarefied,”  but  the  “loudness” 
is  thereby  increased  in  the  same  propor- 
tion, since  “ it  is  upon  the  difference  of  den- 
sity . . . that  loudness  depends."  But  how 
much  is  this  “loudness”  and  “density”  in- 
creased by  two  systems  of  waves  thus  coin- 
ciding? Professor  Tyndall  shall  answer: — 

“ If  in  two  systems  of  sonorous  waves  condensa- 
tion coincides  with  condensation  and  rarefaction 


with  rarefaction,  the  sound  produced  by  such  coin- 
cidence is  louder  than  that  produced  by  either  sys- 
tem taken  singly.” — “If  the  two  sounds  be  of  the 
same  intensity , their  coincidence  produces  a sound 
of  four  times  the  intensity  of  either." — Lectures  on 
Sound,  pp.  2S4,  285. 

Hence,  we  have  here  the  conclusive 
proof  of  my  position,  namely,  that  two 
sounds  traveling  together,  with  their  waves 
coinciding,  must  necessarily  produce  four- 
fold the  condensation  of  either  traveling 
alone,  since  the  Professor  distinctly  tells 
us  that  the  loudness  or  intensity  of  the  sound 
is  quadrupled,  while  at  the  same  time  as- 
suring us  that  it  is  upon  the  difference  of 
density  that  loudness  depends.  Now,  as  the 
heat  generated  by  these  condensations  is 
exactly  in  proportion  to  the  “density”  or 
compression  of  the  air,  as  all  physicists 
agree,  and  since  the  augmentation  of  ve- 
locity, according  to  Laplace,  by  which  174 
feet  a second  is  added  to  the  speed  of 
sound,  is  caused  by  the  heat  generated  in 
these  condensations,  it  follows  irresistibly 
that  since  the  loudness,  the  density,  and  the 
heat  must  all  be  quadrupled,  this  augmen- 
tation of  velocity  (174  feet  a second)  must 
also  be  quadrupled,  making  this  added 
velocity  on  account  of  two  sounds  travel- 
ing together  4 times  174,  or  696  feet, which, 
added  to  Newton’s  calculated  velocity 
(916  feet),  actually  makes  the  velocity  of 
the  two  sounds  united  1612  feet  a second 
at  the  freezing  temperature,  instead  of 
1090  feet, as  all  observation  proves!  These 
are  figures  which  will  neither  lie  nor  con- 
tradict themselves,  wha'.ever  the  wave- 
theory  may  be  in  the  habit  of  doing. 

Thus,  it  unanswerably  follows,  if  these 
condensations  and  rarefactions,  being  the 
very  foundation  of  the  wave-theory,  really 
exist  at  all,  that  two  sounds  coinciding 
must  necessarily  travel  together  522  feet  a 
second  faster  than  either  sound  can  travel 
singly!  But  since  all  observation  shows 
that  there  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


150 

the  velocity  of  sound,  whether  a single 
tone  or  a dozen  tones  pass  through  the  air 
at  one  time,  it  demonstrates  that  no  such 
thing  as  condensations  and  rarefactions  oc- 
curs in  the  propagation  of  sound,  thus 
shattering  in  another  way  the  very  founda- 
tion of  the  theory.  Is  it  possible  that  any 
inductive  course  of  reasoning  can  be  more 
logically  clear  and  demonstrative? 

It  would  really  seem  that  a physicist  of 
such  reputed  caution  in  his  investigations 
of  science  as  Professor  Tyndall,  and  who 
has  so  often  helped  other  people  out  of 
scientific  pitfalls  and  quagmires,  would 
have  been  able  to  detect  the  monstrous 
character  of  the  fallacy  into  which  he  has 
here  inadvertently  slipped.  One  would 
have  thought  that  so  shrewd  a scientific 
thinker,  when  formulating  this  proportion- 
ate relationship  between  the  “density”  of 
the  air,  the  loudness  of  tone,  the  genera- 
tion of  heat  by  these  condensations,  and 
the  augmentation  of  velocity  by  this  heat, 
all  directly  connected  together  and  de- 
pendent the  one  upon  the  other,  would 
have  seen  their  suicidal  effect  just  pointed 
out,  by  the  very  mental  effort  required  to 
put  the  erroneous  proposition  into  form. 
The  very  fact  that  he  did  not  detect  the 
self-annihilating  character  of  the  hypoth- 
esis while  writing  it  out,  preparatory  to  his 
lecture, onlv  goes  to  illustrate  the  blinding 
effect  of  a false  theory  even  on  the  great- 
est of  intellects. 

But  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  culmi- 
nation of  this  error,  nor  have  we  even  be- 
gun to  unfold  its  astonishing  results.  Even 
Professor  Tyndall  can  hardly  help  being 
amused  at  the  laughable  predicament  in 
which  his  logic  has  involved  the  wave- 
theory.  Let  the  reader  carefully  follow 
me  for  a little,  and  see  some  of  the  beau- 
tiful scientific  consequences  of  this  hy- 
pothesis which  has  stood  unshaken  for  so 
many  centuries. 


As  it  is  upon  the  difference  of  “ density" 
that  “loudness  depends,"  (see  last  quota- 
tions,) it  follows  that  just  in  proportion  as 
the  loudness  of  a tone  increases,  exactly 
in  that  proportion  will  the  air-waves  be 
condensed,  exactly  in  that  proportion  will 
the  heat  be  augmented,  and  exactly  in 
that  proportion  will  the  velocity  of  the 
sound  be  augmented.  No  one  can  doubt 
this  as  being  the  unavoidable  teaching  of 
the  theory  when  its  different  members  are 
articulated. 

Take,  for  example,  a tuning-fork,  as 
possessing  a remarkable  diversity  in  range 
of  intensity, — from  almost  inaudibility,  as 
when  held  in  the  hand,  to  a tone  at  least 
of  a hundred  times  the  loudness  when  placed 
on  its  resonant  case,  as  any  acoustician 
will  admit,  since  it  can  be  heard  at  a hun- 
dred times  the  distance. 

Now,  as  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
theory  assures  us  that  the  faintest  tone  of 
this  fork,  as  when  held  in  the  hand,  must 
necessarily  generate  sufficient  heat  by  com- 
pressing the  air  to  add  the  required  174 
feet  a second,  or  otherwise  the  velocity  of 
its  sound  would  not  conform  to  observa- 
tion, it  follows  that  its  full  tone  on  its  reso- 
nant case,  if  a hundredfold  in  loudness, 
must  generate  one  hundred  times  as  much 
heat  by  producing  one  hundred  times  as 
much  “ compression ” or  “ density  ” of  the 
air,  which  unavoidably  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  such  a tone  must  receive  one 
hundred  times  this  additional  augmenta- 
tion of  velocity,  or,  in  other  words,  must 
have  added  100  times  174  feet  a second 
to  its  normal  velocity  of  916  feet,  as  calcu- 
lated by  Newton  when  no  generated  heat 
is  included  in  the  estimate,  making  such 
aggregate  velocity  18,316  feet  per  second! 
Any  tyro  in  mathematics  can  verify  this 
computation  by  merely  passing  these  fig- 
ures in  review. 

What,  now,  can  physicists  say  in  reply 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


to  this  reductio  ad absurdumi  If  they  admit 
that  one  hundred  times  the  loudness  is 
caused  by  one  hundred  times  the  u density” 
or  compression  of  the  air, as  they  are  forced 
to  do,  since  “ it  is  upon  the  difference  of 
density  that  loudness  depends,”  then,  as  the 
amount  of  heat  generated  also  depends  on 
the  amount  of  this  density  or  compression 
of  the  air,  the  same  as  the  amount  of  added 
velocity  depends  upon  the  amount  of  heat 
generated,  there  seems  to  be  no  possible 
escape  from  the  foregoing  general  conclu- 
sion, namely,  that  the  velocity  of  sound 
must  increase  exactly  in  the  ratio  of  its 
loudness,  which  flatly  contradicts  observa- 
tion! A startling  illustration  of  this  fal- 
lacy will  be  adduced  at  the  close  of  the 
next  chapter,  furnishing  a demonstrative 
overthrow  of  the  wave-hypothesis,  which 
no  man  can  gainsay. 

But  even  this  logical  example  of  reductio 
ad  absurdum  is  but  a small  fraction  of  the 
trouble  in  which  these  physicists  have  in- 
volved themselves  and  their  theory  by  at- 
tempting to  build  upon  this  fundamental 
error  of  “condensations  and  rarefactions,” 
and  in  assuming  to  utilize  their  hypothetic 
heat  and  cold  to  get  rid  of  Newton’s  tan- 
talizing discrepancy.  I have  another  legiti- 
mate and  irresistible  deduction  to  make 
from  this  foundation-law  of  the  theory 
which  must  settle  even  Professor  Tyndall, 
unless  the  figures  already  adduced  on  the 
stridulation  of  the  locust  have  paralyzed 
his  mathematical  and  mechanical  suscep- 
tibilities. 

The  reader  must  not  for  a moment  lose 
sight  of  the  fact,  during  the  progress  of  the 
argument,  that  this  physicist  distinctly  tells 
us,  and  repeats  it  in  many  forms,  that  it 
is  upon  the  difference  of  “ density,"  or  the 
compression  of  the  air  by  a sound-wave, 
“that  loudness  depends ,”  and  that  it  must 
be  also  upon  this  same  difference  in  “den- 
sity” that  the  generation  of  heat  and  the 


*5* 

consequent  augmentation  of  velocity  de- 
pend. If  the  augmentation  of  velocity  is 
caused,  as  the  theory  teaches,  by  the  aug- 
mentation of  heat  generated  by  the  con- 
densation of  the  sound-wave,  on  which 
loudness  depends,  does  it  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  augmentation  of  velocity 
and  the  loudness  of  sound  must  keep  up 
a corresponding  ratio  of  increase  or  de- 
crease? This  must  be  so,  or  else  there  is 
not  the  least  foundation  for  the  formula 
of  Laplace,  and  no  truth  in  the  hypothetic 
condensations  of  the  air  and  their  resultant 
heat,  as  assumed  by  Professor  Tyndall. 
But  if  the  augmentation  of  velocity  corre- 
sponds to  the  augmentation  of  heat,  as 
Laplace  and  Tyndall  assume,  and  if  the 
augmentation  of  heat  corresponds  to  the 
increase  of  density,  on  which  loudness  also 
depends,  then  evidently  the  various  aug- 
mentations form  a logical  chain  from  one 
to  the  other  which  can  not  be  broken  with- 
out severing  the  wave-theory  from  its  base. 
This  relationship  being  unavoidable,  if 
there  is  any  truth  in  the  assumption  of 
“condensations  and  rarefactions”  and 
their  resultant  heat  and  cold,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  ignore  the  conclusion  that  the  ve- 
locity of  every  sound  must  exactly  corre- 
spond with  its  intensity,  or,  in  other  words, 
must  increase  or  decrease  with  its  loudness. 
Hence,  we  are  brought  to  the  most  astound- 
ing development  of  the  wave-theory,  name- 
ly, that  since  the  loudness  of  sound  de- 
creases as  the  square  of  the  distance  from 
its  source,  as  Professor  Tyndall  assures  us, 
its  velocity  must  also  decrease  in  like  pro- 
portion ! 

I now  propose  to  let  this  high  authority 
on  sound  state  this  ratio  of  decrease  in 
loudness  in  his  own  way,  which  must  ne- 
cessarily give  the  corresponding  decrease 
in  the  condensation  produced  by  the  sound- 
wave, in  the  heat  produced  by  the  con- 
densation, and  in  the  augmentation  of 


152 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


velocity  produced  by  the  heat,  after 
which  it  will  take  but  a few  moments  to 
point  out  the  fatal  effect  of  his  figures. 
I quote,  as  usual,  from  his  Lectures  on 
Sound: — 

“You  have,  I doubt  not,  a clear  mental  picture 
of  the  propagation  of  the  sound  from  our  exploding 
balloon  through  the  surrounding  air.  The  -wave  of 
sound  expands  on  all  sides,  the  motion  produced  by 
the  explosion  being  thus  diffused  over  a continually 
augmenting  mass  of  air.  It  is  perfectly  manifest 
that  this  can  not  occur  without  an  enfeeblement  of 
the  motion.  Take  the  case  of  a shell  of  air  of  a 
certain  thickness  with  a radius  of  one  foot,  reckoned 
from  the  centre  of  explosion.  A shell  of  air  of  the 
same  thickness,  but  of  two  feet  radius,  will  contain 
four  times  the  quantity  of  matter ; if  its  radius  be 
three  feet  it  will  contain  nine  times  the  quantity  of 
matter;  if  four  feet  it  will  contain  sixteen  times  the 
quantity  of  matter,  and  so  on.  Thus  the  quantity 
of  matter  set  in  motion  augments  as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  the  centre  of  the  explosion.  The 
intensity  or  loudness  of  sound  diminishes  in  the 
same  proportion .” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  io. 

The  above  can  not  be  misunderstood. 
The  loudness  of  any  tone  four  feet  from 
the  sounding  body,  according  to  this  law, 
is  but  one  sixteenth  as  great  as  directly  at 
the  sounding  body.  Hence, the  “density” 
or  “condensation”  of  the  air,  and  the  gen- 
eration of  heat,  as  well  as  the  resultant 
augmentation  of  velocity,  are  all  reduced 
in  the  same  ratio.  This  is  perfectly  mani- 
fest, since  the  augmentation  of  velocity 
depends  upon  the  amount  of  generated 
heat,  the  heat  depends  upon  the  amount 
of  compression  or  “density,”  while  “it  is 
upon  the  difference  of  density  that  loud- 
ness depends.”  Now,  all  we  have  to  do 
is  to  estimate  the  decrease  in  loudness  by 
this  same  ratio,  “as  the  square  of  the  dis- 
tance” from  the  sounding  body  to  the  limit 
of  audibility  in  case  of  any  sound,  and  we 
can  determine  the  exact  difference  in  its 
“condensation”  of  the  air  at  its  start  and 
at  its  termination,  since  the  decrease  in 
“density”  corresponds  exactly  to  the  de- 
crease in  “loudness;” — we  can  also  deter- 


mine the  exact  difference  in  the  amount 
of  heat  it  generates  at  its  start  and  also  at 
its  extreme  limit  of  audibility,  because  the 
ratio  of  decrease  in  heat  depends  upon 
the  ratio  of  decrease  in  compression ; — and 
finally,  we  can  also  determine  the  exact 
difference  between  the  velocity  of  any 
sound  at  its  start  and  at  its  point  of  final 
inaudibility,  because  the  decrease  in  aug- 
mented velocity  depends  on  the  decrease 
in  augmented  heat,  exactly  the  same  as 
heat  depends  on  the  compression  of  the 
air-wave,  or  as  loudness  depends  on  this 
“density”! 

These  premises  and  conclusions  are  as 
immovable  (assuming  the  truth  of  the 
wvave-theory)  as  the  principles  and  laws 
demonstrated  by  the  Copernican  System 
of  Astronomy ; and,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  wave-hypothesis  is  true,  the  above 
chain  of  ratios  must  hold  good  in  all  its 
details.  Let  us  now  apply  this  self-evident 
logic  of  the  theory  to  the  well-known  ve- 
locity of  sound,  and  see  its  annihilating 
result. 

According  to  this  law  laid  down  by 
Professor  Tyndall,  a sound,  after  passing 
a distance  of  ioo  feet  from  the  sounding 
body,  would  have  but  one  io,oooth  the  in- 
tensity or  loudness  as  at  its  source,  since 
you  have  simply  to  multiply  ioo  or  any 
other  number  by  itself,  the  same  as  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  multiplied  4 by  itself  in 
order  to  determine  this  ratio  of  decrease 
for  any  distance.  It  follows,  therefore,  if 
Professor  Tyndall  is  right,  that  the  steam 
siren  (employed  along  the  coast  in  our 
signal  service),  which  can  be  easily  heard 
at  sea  a distance  of  ten  miles,  or  52,800 
feet, when  the  conditions  of  the  atmosphere 
are  favorable,  would  actually  possess,  in 
round  numbers, but  the  one  2,000,000,000th 
as  much  intensity  or  loudness  at  a distance 
of  ten  miles  as  at  the  start!  Using  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall’s  measure  of  ufcctl'  as  he 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


153 


does,  in  ascertaining  the  ratio  of  this 
sound’s  decrease  (which  we  must  do,  of 
course,  when  such  high  authority  prescribes 
it),  we  have  only  to  multiply  the  52,800 
feet  into  themselves  to  determine  this  pro- 
portion of  decrease  in  intensity,  as  the 
square  of  the  distance  from  the  source 
of  the  sound,  thus  obtaining  the  infinitely 
incredible  if  not  preposterous  result  dem- 
onstrated above.  But,  for  the  present,  let 
us  accept  these  figures  as  correct,  since 
they  legitimately  belong  to  the  wave-theory, 
and  see  what  they  will  do  for  the  hy- 
pothesis. 

Since  the  sound  of  the  steam  siren  at  a 
distance  of  ten  miles  must  necessarily 
have,  according  to  the  above  ratio,  but 
the  one  2,000,000,000th  as  much  “loudness" 
it  can  accordingly  generate  but  the  one 
2,000,000,000th  as  much  heat , since  the 
heat  and  the  loudness  alike  depend  on  the 
“density”  or  the  compression  of  the  air, 
and  must  therefore  exactly  correspond  to 
it  in  these  respects  and  to  each  other. 
And,  finally,  the  sound  at  that  distance 
would  receive  but  the  one  2,000,000,000th 
as  much  augmentation  of  velocity , accord- 
ing to  Laplace,  on  account  of  this  reduced 
augmentation  of  heat , as  at  its  source, 
where  it  is,  of  course,  2,000,000,000  times 
as  loud,  causing  2,000,000,000  times  as 
much  density  or  compression  of  the  air, 
and  consequently  generating  2,000,000,000 
times  as  much  heat!  Are  physicists  pre- 
pared for  this? 

Possibly,  if  I should  invert  this  state- 
ment of  the  problem,  beginning  ten  miles 
away  from  the  steam  siren,  and  then  trace 
the  sound  backward  toward  its  source  by 
applying  the  same  law  to  find  the  increase 
by  which  Professor  Tyndall  determines 
the  decrease , since  they  are  evidently  the 
same  in  ratio  “as  the  square  of  the  dis- 
tance,” it  might  be  possible  to  make  the 
infinite  audacity  and  nonsense  of  the 


wave-theory  more  intelligible  to  these  as- 
tute physicists  whom  I have  the  honor  of 
reviewing.  Let  us  look  at  it  in  this  light 
for  a moment,  and  note  the  consequences. 

At  the  extreme  limit  of  the  ten  miles  we 
will  suppose,  as  we  are  of  course  obliged 
tp  do  to  accommodate  this  hypothesis,  that 
the  sound  of  the  siren,  being  still  distinctly 
heard,  must  necessarily  produce  sufficient 
condensation  of  the  air  to  generate  sufficient 
heat  to  add  this  required  174  feet  a second 
to  its  velocity,  or  otherwise  the  sound 
would  not  travel  according  to  observation; 
and, what  is  worse  than  that,  it  would  con- 
tradict Professor  Tyndall  and  overthrow 
the  formula  of  Laplace  which  accounts 
for  “one  sixth”  of  the  velocity  of  sound, 
or  174  feet  a second,  by  this  generation 
of  heat. 

If,  then,  the  sound,  ten  miles  away  from 
the  siren,  still  generates  heat  enough  to 
add  this  174  feet  a second  to  its  velocity, 
which  it  must  do  if  there  is  any  truth  in 
the  wave-theory,  it  follows,  as  a self-evident 
proposition,  since  the  sound  increases  in 
loudness  as  we  trace  it  backward  toward 
its  source  by  Professor  Tyndall’s  law,  “as 
the  square  of  the  distance,”  that  it  increases 
in  its  augmentation  of  heat  and  velocity  in 
the  same  proportion! 

There  is  no  escape  from  this,  for  we  can 
almost  use  the  Professor’s  own  words,  and 
say:  At  2 feet  from  this  ten-mile  limit, 
passing  toward  the  siren,  the  sound  is  4 
times  as  loud;  at  3 feet  it  is  9 times  as 
loud;  at  4 feet  it  is  16  times  as  loud;  at 
10  feet  it  is  100  times  as  loud;  at  100  feet 
it  is  10,000  times  as  loud;  and  at  1,000  feet 
it  is,  of  course,  1,000,000  times  as  loud! 
Yet  1,000  feet  nearer  the  siren,  at  such  a 
remote  station  (less  than  the  fiftieth  of  the 
distance)  would  evidently  not  make  a differ- 
ence in  the  loudness  of  the  sound  which 
could  hardly  be  detected  by  the  most 
sensitive  ear,  though  Professor  Tyndall’s 


154 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


highly  scientific  (!)  formula  makes  the 
sound  increase  to  one  million  times  the  in- 
tensity in  this  comparatively  trifling  space! 
Can  a theory  be  worthy  of  this  enlightened 
age,  or  make  any  claim  upon  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  reader  as  a scientific  hypoth- 
esis, which  depends  for  its  existence  op 
the  inculcation  of  such  a monstrous  fal- 
lacy of  science  as  this  ratio  of  decrease  in 
sound,  gravely  formulated  by  this  eminent 
physicist? 

But  continuing  to  trace  the  increasing 
sound  backward  toward  the  siren,  we  not 
only  have  it  1,000,000  times  as  loud,  ac- 
cording to  this  brilliantly  formulated  ratio, 
when  we  have  gone  only  1,000  feet  nearer 
to  the  source  of  the  sound,  but,  as  shown 
when  pointing  out  the  proportion  of  de- 
crease as  we  receded  from  the  siren,  the 
sound  unavoidably  becomes  2,000,000,000 
times  as  loud  directly  at  the  instrument  as 
it  is  ten  miles  away.  Then  it  necessarily 
follows  that  it  must  produce  2,000,000,000 
times  as  much  compression  or  udensity”  of 
the  air  at  the  instrument  (since  “it  is  upon 
the  difference  of  density  that  loudness  de- 
pends,”) as  it  does  ten  miles  away, — that 
it  must  generate  2,000,000,000  times  as 
much  heat  at  the  instrument  as  it  does  ten 
miles  away;  and,  finally,  that  the  augmen- 
tation of  velocity  caused  by  such  generated 
heat,  according  to  the  hypothesis  of  La- 
place, must  be  2,000,000,000  times  as  great 
at  the  instrument,  or,  in  other  words,  it 
must  produce  an  augmentation  of  2,000,- 
000,000  times  174  feet  a second,  which, 
independent  of  the  normal  velocity  with- 
out heat  (916  feet),  absolutely  makes  the 
velocity  of  sound  as  it  leaves  the  mouth 
of  the  steam  siren,  348,000,000,000  feet,  or 
66,000,000  miles  a second,  being  more  than 
three  hundred  and  forty-seven  times  the  ve- 
locity of  light!  Are  physicists  prepared 
for  this?  Whether  they  are  or  not,  it  is 
the  unexaggerated  teaching  of  the  wave- 


theory,  to  which  Professor  Tyndall  is  irre- 
vocably committed  by  his  ratio  of  the 
increase  or  decrease  of  loudness  as  the 
square  of  the  distance  from  the  sounding 
body. 

No  man  who  accepts  the  current  hypoth- 
esis of  sound  as  expounded  by  Professors 
Tyndall,  Helmholtz,  and  Mayer,  and  in 
fact  all  who  have  written  on  the  subject, 
can  call  in  question  the  legitimacy  or 
logical  necessity  of  the  results  just  arrived 
at,  or  deny  but  that  they  are  the  unavoid- 
able outgrowths  of  the  wave-theory.  PIow- 
ever  fabulous  the  foregoing  array  of  figures 
may  seem,  we  are  nevertheless  obliged  to 
accept  it  as  representing  the  well-authen- 
ticated facts  of  philosophy  and  science  so 
long  as  the  current  hypothesis  of  sound  is 
looked  upon  and  permitted  to  exist  as  a 
scientific  theory.  Shall  it  continue  to  be 
so  looked  upon  and  be  so  permitted  to 
exist?  is  the  important  question  here  sub- 
mitted for  the  decision  of  the  scientific 
world. 

At  this  juncture  of  the  discussion  an 
opportunity  offers,  which,  perhaps,  may  not 
so  readily  occur  again,  for  a brief  exposi- 
tion of  the  new  hypothesis  of  Substantial 
Sonorous  Pulses,  in  order  to  show  how 
beautifully  and  consistently  it  solves  this 
problem  of  the  decrease  of  intensity  in 
Sound,  Light,  and  Heat,  as  the  true  square 
of  the  distance  from  their  source. 

This  conception  that  sound  consists  of 
substantial  corpuscles  instead  of  being 
constituted  of  the  undulatory  motions  of 
the  medium  through  which  it  passes,  was 
fully  elucidated  in  the  discussion  of  sono- 
rous reflection  and  the  falling  pitch  of  a 
passing  locomotive-whistle  at  pages  117, 
122,  123,  124. 

According  to  the  views  there  presented, 
it  is  but  a simple  matter  to  mentally  view 
the  particles  of  sonorous  substance  radia- 
ting from  a sounding  body  in  all  directions, 


CHA1-.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


155 


becoming  less  and  less  in  number,  or,  in 
other  words,  becoming  sparcer  and  sparcer 
the  farther  they  advance,  as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  the  center.  Neither  is 
there  any  necessity  for  supposing  that  such 
sound-atoms  cease  in  their  travel  or  retard 
in  their  velocity  in  the  slightest  degree 
when  they  cease  to  be  audible,  or,  in  fact, 
until  they  reach  the  extreme  limits  of  the 
medium  which  conducts  them.  But  as  it 
requires  a certain  quantity  or  number  of 
these  particles  to  come  into  contact  with 
the  tympanic  membrane  in  order  to  affect 
audition,  it  rationally  follows  that  the  range 
of  a sound,  or  the  distance  at  which  it  can 
be  heard  from  its  source,  depends  upon 
the  density  or  number  of  these  particles 
generated  and  set  free  by  the  sonorific 
body,  or,  in  other  words,  depends  on  the 
compactness  or  nearness  together  of  these 
sonorous  particles  at  the  commencement 
of  their  radiation,  which  also  necessarily 
determines  their  comparative  nearness  to- 
gether at  any  particular  distance  from 
their  source. 

It  is  perfectly  evident,  if  sound  consists 
of  substantial  corpuscles,  as  my  hypothesis 
assumes,  that  a feeble  sound  at  the  start 
must  be  such  because  the  sound-particles 
generated  are  few  in  number  and  conse- 
quently scattering,  so  that  but  a small 
number  can  enter  the  aural  passage  even 
when  the  ear  is  held  near  the  sounding 
body;  whereas,  a loud  sound  at  the  com- 
mencement, or  near  the  sound-producing 
instrument, is  exactly  the  converse  of  this: 
the  sonorous  particles  are  densely  com- 
pacted because  a greater  quantity  is  gen- 
erated, owing  to  the  molecular  action 
which  produces  them  being  more  effective 
or  productive ; and  hence,  in  radiating  and 
separating  as  the  square  of  the  distance 
from  their  source,  they  can  necessarily  pass 
to  a considerable  distance  without  being 
sufficiently  thinned  out  or  separated  to 


appreciably  weaken  their  effect  on  the 
sensitive  membrane  of  the  ear. 

But  carrying  the  idea  still  further,  the 
most  densely  compacted  mass  of  sound- 
corpuscles  which  may  be  supposed  to  col- 
lect about  the  mouth  of  a powerful  steam 
siren  will  nevertheless,  at  the  proper  dis- 
tance from  it,  produce  a feeble  tone,  owing 
to  the  particles  becoming  so  sparce  or 
widely  separated  that  but  few  of  them  can 
enter  the  ear  at  one  time,  and  can  thus 
produce  but  slight  effect  upon  the  tym- 
panic membrane, — till  finally,  at  a sufficient 
distance  from  their  source,  the  particles 
will  necessarily  have  become  so  separated 
and  distributed  over  the  continually  aug- 
menting mass  of  air  that  even  if  the  auric- 
ular passage  is  not  missed  entirely  a suffi- 
cient number  can  not  enter  it  to  affect 
audition,  unless  they  should  be  converged 
into  the  ear  by  some  kind  of  a funnel- 
shaped  device  such  as  an  ear-trumpet. 
(See  page  123.)  Notwithstanding  this  ex- 
treme limit  of  audibility  and  apparent  ter- 
mination of  the  sound,  it  is  easy  conceiv- 
ing, as  every  way  probable,  that  all  the 
original  corpuscles,  which  produced  such 
an  intense  effect  near  the  instrument, may, 
as  just  remarked,  continue  to  pursue  their 
course  through  the  air  at  their  normal  ve- 
locity, still  more  widely  separating  as  the 
square  of  the  distance,  and  not  cease  their 
journey  till  they  have  reached  the  extreme 
limits  of  the  atmosphere. 

This  corpuscular  hypothesis  involves 
even  more  than  has  yet  been  explained. 
In  addition  to  this  weakening  of  the  inten- 
sity of  sound  as  the  distance  increases 
from  its  source,  in  consequence  of  the 
sonorous  particles  becoming  sparcer  or 
scattered  by  radiation  over  a wider  and 
wider  range  of  atmosphere,  it  is  even  con- 
ceivable that  the  corpuscles  themselves 
may  be  larger  or  more  massive  in  one  case 
than  in  another,  and  that  each  sound- 


156 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


particle  may  itself  be  susceptible  of  be- 
coming subdivided  almost  to  infinity  by 
giving  off  scintillations  of  its  sonorous 
substance  in  all  directions  while  passing 
through  the  air,  the  same  as  meteors  have 
often  been  seen  to  do. 

Thus,  a feeble  sound  at  the  start,  as  in 
the  tone  of  a mosquito  or  of  a bee,  may  de- 
pend for  its  extreme  faintness  on  the  finer 
or  smaller  grade  of  sonorous  corpuscles 
thus  generated  as  well  as  on  their  fewness 
in  number,  which,  supposing  the  corpus- 
cular hypothesis  true,  would  seem  to  be 
not  only  probable  but  reasonable. 

Added  to  this,  I have  no  hesitancy  in 
believing  that  as  a sound-pulse  advances 
the  gradual  weakening  of  its  tone  (instead 
of  being  a less  and  less  motion  of  the  air 
as  the  wave-theory  teaches,  and  which  has 
been  shown  to  be  infinitely  impossible  by 
the  singing  of  a locust,)  may  be  and  prob- 
ably is  due  to  the  decrease  in  size  as  well 
as  number  of  the  sonorous  atoms  which 
constitute  the  sound  and  enter  the  ear. 

I may  even  assume,  in  connection  with 
the  secondary  or  scintillating  radiations 
of  which  I have  spoken,  the  rational  prob- 
ability that  the  primary  streams  of  sound- 
corpuscles  as  they  leave  the  instrument 
may  even  emit  a number  of  delicate  sec- 
ondary systems  of  sonorous  particles  in 
periodic  pulses  of  distinctly  different  and 
more  rapid  vibratory  rates,  each  system 
maintaining  at  the  same  time  a relative 
concordant  periodicity  to  the  primary  sys- 
tem of  corpuscles, — while  two  instru- 
ments sounding  together  in  the  relation 
of  some  proper  chord,  as  third  or  fifth, 
might  even  generate  another  and  inde- 
pendent system,  of  periodic  pulses  of  a 
slower  vibratory  rate  than  either  of  the 
primary  systems!  This  may  not  at  present 
be  intelligible  to  the  reader,  but  I throw 
out  the  bare  statement  of  the  hypothesis 
here,  as  I shall  revert  to  it  before  the  close 


of  this  chapter  in  connection  with  another 
feature  of  the  wave-theory  which  will  beau- 
tifully illustrate  what  is  here  but  darkly 
hinted.  I hope,  therefore,  in  view  of  its 
important  future  application  that  the 
reader  will  carefully  re-peruse  this  para- 
graph before  passing  on,  that  it  may  be 
well  impressed  on  the  memory.  I will 
only  add  here,  if  it  be  true  at  all  that 
sound  is  constituted  of  substantial  sonor- 
ous particles,  then  the  secondary  systems 
of  radiating  corpuscles,  which  I have  as- 
sumed, if  needed  to  explain  the  various 
phenomena  of  sound,  would  be  neither 
insupposable  nor  improbable. 

The  truth  is,  the  novelty  of  the  corpus- 
cular hypothesis  constitutes  the  principal 
objection  to  its  acceptance.  We  have 
been  so  constantly  through  life  habituated 
to  consider  nothing  as  substance  unless 
corporeally  tangible  that  the  mind  natu- 
rally hesitates  in  conceding  the  substan- 
tivity  of  anything  which  eludes  the  senses 
as  palpable  material,  or  which  will  not 
submit  to  chemical  analysis.  But  the 
world  is  growing,  and  despite  the  efforts 
of  would-be  science  to  keep  it  in  its  swad- 
dling-clothes, seems  destined  to  grow  on 
till  its  present  scientific  raiment  shall  not 
only  have  become  too  small  for  it,  but 
shall  have  also  become  so  ludicrously 
threadbare  and  rent  that  true  philosophy 
and  science  will  be  ashamed  to  look  upon 
its  semi-nudeness.  In  view  of  this  encour- 
aging tendency  of  the  world  to  grow  in- 
stead of  retrograde,  the  writer  proposes  in 
a humble  way  not  only  to  add  what  he 
can  to  the  fertilizing  and  fructifying  ele- 
ments which  may  tend  to  accelerate  its 
growth,  but  to  lend  a sartorial  hand  from 
time  to  time  in  helping  to  replenish  its 
now  scanty  and  tattered  scientific  ward- 
robe. 

Returning  to  the  assumption  of  sonorous 
corpuscles  as  the  true  solution  of  sound- 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


l57 


propagation,  it  is  easy  to  conceive  the  idea 
that  at  ten  miles  away  from  the  steam 
siren,  for  example, we  hear  its  sound  faint- 
ly, not  only  because  the  sound-particles 
have  become  so  scattered  that  only  a few 
of  them  can  enter  the  ear,  but  also  because 
what  few  of  them  do  enter  have  become 
so  reduced  in  size  by  the  constant  emis- 
sion of  secondary  radiations  during  their 
journey  that  they  make  but  a slight  im- 
pression on  the  tympanic  membrane, — 
while  we  also  hear  the  sound  of  the  gnat, 
at  a distance  of  only  six  inches  from  it,  on 
precisely  the  same  principle  and  for  the 
same  reason.  In  both  cases  the  number 
and  size  of  the  sound-corpuscles,  coming 
in  contact  with  the  sensitive  membrane  of 
the  ear,  determine  the  intensity  of  the 
tone ; and  the  reason  why  we  hear  the 
sound  of  the  midge  as  feebly  at  a distance 
of  six  inches  as  we  do  that  of  a steam  siren 
at  a distance  of  ten  miles,  is  because  the 
midge  generates  sonorous  particles  in 
number  and  size  as  much  less  than  those 
produced  by  the  siren  as  six  inches  are 
less  than  ten  miles!  Can  any  hypothetic 
solution  of  a scientific  problem  be  more 
beautifully  simple  and  consistent  than 
this?  And  does  not  this  view  of  sonorous 
propagation  appeal  for  its  probable  cor- 
rectness to  the  intelligence  and  scientific 
intuition  of  the  reader?  By  the  side  of  it, 
viewed  only  as  a provisional  hypothesis, 

I venture  to  assert  that  the  supposition  of 
an  all-pervading  ether  as  being  a real  sub- 
stance circulating  freely  among  the  mole- 
cules of  the  diamond,  which  is  now  univer- 
sally accepted  by  scientists,  would  be  at 
once  rejected  as  improbable  were  the  two 
hypotheses  submitted  with  their  claims 
side  by  side  to  a competent  and  judicial 
scientific  mind, — that  is,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  both  were  equally  novel.  While 
this  hypothetic  ether  is  admittedly  not 
known  to  exist  by  any  scientific  experi- 


ment or  chemical  process,  it  is  at  the  same 
time  wholly  useless  in  Nature  and  in  sci- 
ence, since  every  phenomenon  occurring 
in  light,  as  shown  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
this  book,  can  be  more  readily  explained 
by  supposing  the  light-corpuscles  them- 
selves, in  being  propagated  through  space, 
to  take  the  form  of  leaves  or  pulses,  than 
to  ignore  their  existence  by  substituting 
this  secondary  substance  (luminiferous 
ether)  to  be  thrown  into  undulations,  which 
but  duplicates  the  mystery  rather  than 
simplifying  the  problem. 

Not  so,  however,  with  these  hypothetic 
sound-corpuscles.  Although  it  is  true  that 
they  can  not  be  demonstrated  to  exist  by 
direct  scientific  experiment  or  chemical 
analysis  any  more  than  can  this  so-called 
luminiferous  ether , — standing  thus  far  on 
an  equal  footing, — yet,  as  has  been  abun- 
dantly shown,  while  they  meet  every  con- 
ceivable difficulty  encountered,  they  are 
the  only  imaginable  means  left  for  explain- 
ing sonorous  generation  and  propagation 
if  the  wave-theory  breaks  down,  as  break 
down  it  must,  and  consequently  without 
recognizing  the  presence  of  such  substan- 
tial sonorous  pulses  sound-phenomena 
must  forever  go  without  solution.  I do 
not  think  I shall  be  charged  with  undue 
self-confidence  or  egotism  in  expressing 
the  conviction  that  during  the  preceding 
arguments  air-waves  have  been  demon- 
strably shown  to  be  inadequate  to  meet 
this  case  or  to  account  satisfactorily  for 
the  hearing  of  sound  at  a distance.  I need 
only  remind  the  reader,  as  a proof  of  this 
statement,  of  the  astounding  fact  of  an  in- 
sect converting  four  cubic  miles  of  air  into 
“condensations  and  rarefactions,”  with 
sufficient  heat  generated  by  the  motion 
of  its  legs  to  add  “one  sixth”  to  the  ve- 
locity of  sound, — requiring,  as  was  mathe- 
matically shown,  thousands  of  millions  of 
tons  pressure, — to  justify  all  I can  say  as 


153 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


to  the  utter  insufficiency  of  the  wave- 
hypothesis.  Hence,  the  actual  existence 
of  substantial  sonorous  corpuscles,  though 
of  almost  infinite  tenuity, becomes  a neces- 
sity of  science,  and  thus  solves  the  prob- 
lems of  sound  generation  and  propagation 
by  the  exclusion  of  wave-motion,  the  only 
other  conceivable  hypothesis. 

By  the  foregoing  illustrations  it  can  now 
be  readily  comprehended,  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  a sound-pulse  being  constituted 
of  substantial  particles,  how  the  entire 
range  of  the  sound  of  a gnat,  for  example, 
may  be  confined  within  a single  foot, 
though  its  sonorous  corpuscles  are  radi- 
ated in  the  same  manner,  propagated  at 
the  same  velocity,  and  governed  by  the 
same  law  of  decrease  in  intensity,  as  are 
the  sonorous  discharges  emitted  from  a 
steam  siren.  Both  are  controlled  by  the 
same  law  of  decrease — as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  the  source — when  prop- 
erly understood.  The  sound-particles  from 
the  midge  scatter  and  diffuse  themselves 
throughout  their  limited  range,  becoming 
sparcer  and  sparcer,  the  same  exactly  as 
do  those  from  the  steam  siren,  while  the 
intensity  of  its  sound  decreases  from  its 
greatest  audibility  to  nothing  within  this 
trifling  circumscription,  just  because  the 
corpuscles  being  small  in  size  and  few  in 
number  become  so  reduced  in  bulk  and 
widely  separated  within  a single  foot  that 
a sufficient  number  can  not  concentrate 
within  the  aural  passage  to  sensibly  act  on 
the  auditory  nerve. 

In  contrast  with  this  simple  and  beau- 
tiful eclaircissement  we  have  only  to  jux- 
taposit  the  wave-hypothesis  by  assuming 
that  the  tiny  midge  throws  the  air  into 
physical  waves  constituted  of  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions,”  each  one  of  which 
so  compresses  the  air  as  to  generate  heat 
sufficient  to  add  one  sixth  to  the  velocity 
of  it  ■>  sound,  and  the  difference  between 


the  two  solutions  as  to  their  probable  cor- 
rectness scarcely  needs  an  argument. 

Thus,  while  the  beauty  and  consistency 
of  this  solution  of  sonorous  propagation 
can  hardly  fail  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  science,  so  far  at  least  as  beauty  and 
consistency  go,  the  new  hypothesis  also 
agrees  admirably  with  other  well-known 
natural  phenomena  resulting  from  the  ra- 
diation and  diffusion  of  substantial  cor- 
puscles, and  in  connection  with  which  no 
kind  of  wave-motion  of  the  air  or  of  any 
other  substance  has  ever  been  suggested. 

Take,  for  example,  a small  rubber  bal- 
loon filled  with  some  kind  of  highly  pun- 
gent odor,  which,  on  being  liberated  in  a 
still  room  of  sufficient  size,  will  furnish  a 
complete  illustration  of  the  manner  in 
which  substantial  sound-corpuscles  may 
be  supposed  to  radiate.  Though  con- 
trolled by  a different  law  of  conduction 
and  traveling  with  a different  velocity,  yet 
the  odor  on  being  discharged  will  at  once 
commence  to  propagate  itself  from  par- 
ticle to  particle  of  the  atmosphere  and  at 
considerable  velocity,  extending  over  a 
wider  and  wider  range,  and,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  diffusion  of  sonorous  corpuscles,  the 
fragrance  will  become  less  and  less  pun- 
gent as  the  square  of  the  distance  from 
the  odorous  center,  growing  weaker  exactly 
in  the  ratio  as  the  particles  of  the  perfume 
scatter  and  become  sparcer,  by  which 
means  fewer  fragrant  corpuscles  come 
into  contact  with  the  sensitive  olfactory 
nerves. 

Thus  Nature  has  furnished  us  with  a 
“mode  of  motion”  which  all  science  ac- 
knowledges to  be  constituted  of  real  sub- 
stantial corpuscles,  though  of  such  incom- 
prehensible tenuity  as  to  utterly  baffle  the 
imagination  in  attempting  to  conceive  of 
them  as  substance  at  all,  as  was  so  fully 
illustrated  by  the  hound  and  the  fox.  (See 
page  135.) 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


!59 


As  intimated  in  another  chapter,  physi- 
cists have  shown  a want  of  shrewdness 
and  business  sagacity  almost  unparalleled 
in  ever  admitting  odor  to  be  a substantial 
entity,  unless  they  wished  to  cripple  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  since  it  is  clearly 
susceptible  of  solution  by  means  of  some 
sort  of  hypothetic  odoriferous  ether  which 
could  easily  have  been  invented,  and  which 
might  assume  the  form  of  undulations  as 
the  air  is  drawn  into  the  nostrils!  What 
an  oversight  in  physicists,  that  they  did 
not  think  of  it!  There  are  really  more 
good  reasons,  when  we  come  to  look  at  it, 
to  be  urged  in  favor  of  wave-motion  in 
the  case  of  odor  than  in  the  case  of  sound, 
since  it  is  always  connected  with  and  ac- 
companied by  a rippling  stream  of  air 
passing  into  the  nose,  whereas  no  such  a 
plausible  argument  can  be  adduced  in 
favor  of  undulations  entering  either  the 
ear  or  the  eye,  since  they  have  no  basis 
in  a stream  of  air  or  of  any  other  sub- 
stance moving  along  the  aural  passage,  or 
pouring  through  the  opening  of  the  iris. 

The  radiations  of  sound-corpuscles  and 
the  decrease  in  loudness  as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  the  sounding  body,  are 
governed  by  the  same  ratio  precisely  as 
shown  in  the  case  of  light.  In  either  case 
the  decrease  in  intensity  results  from  the 
same  cause — the  separation  of  the  corpus- 
cles over  a wider  and  continually  augment- 
ing range  of  atmosphere.  The  reason  why 
a carbon  point,  when  intensely  heated,  as 
in  a Drummond  light,  can  be  seen  so  much 
farther  than  the  light  of  a candle-wick  of 
the  same  size,  is  because  the  one  generates 
a vastly  greater  number  of  luminous  cor- 
puscles than  can  be  produced  by  the  other, 
and  possibly  corpuscles  of  a larger  size. 
And  although  the  luminous  atoms  radiate 
in  the  same  manner  in  all  directions  as  do 
the  corpuscles  of  sound,  becoming  sparcer 
and  sparcer  the  farther  they  advance,  ac- 


cording to  this  law, — as  the  square  of  the 
distance  from  the  source , — yet  the  particles 
of  light  being  more  compact  and  vastly 
more  numerous  at  the  carbon  point  than 
at  the  candle-wick,  it  requires  but  the 
mental  effort  of  a child  to  comprehend 
that  at  a definite  distance — say  a quarter 
of  a mile  away — the  light  of  the  candle 
might  scarcely  be  visible,  because  its  par- 
ticles being  fewer  in  number  at  the  start 
would  necessarily  become  more  diffused 
and  less  in  number  in  the  space  occupied 
by  the  eye,  and  consequently  a less  number 
of  light-corpuscles  would  strike  the  retina; 
whereas  the  luminous  atoms  generated  by 
the  carbon  point,  being  greater  in  number 
and  more  densely  compact  at  the  start  are 
necessarily  not  so  sparcely  scattered  at 
any  single  point  a quarter  of  a mile  dis- 
tant, and  hence  a greater  number  would 
enter  the  eye  and  affect  the  retina  at  that 
station,  and  thereby  cause  the  carbon  light 
to  appear  the  brighter.  What  possible 
solution  of  these  wonderful  phenomena, 
based  on  the  undulatory  movement  of  an 
all-pervading  “ether,”  can  be  so  beautifully 
consistent  and  clear? 

But  here  a marked  difference  in  the 
propagation  of  light  and  sound  comes  to 
the  surface,  which  alone  refutes  the  idea 
of  both  being  wave-motion,  even  if  one  is, 
for  the  reason  that  the  waves  of  ether  and 
the  waves  of  air  should  produce  at  least 
analogous  results,  since  both  are  sub- 
stances according  to  science,  so  called. 
Instead  of  being  alike,  their  action  is  so 
obviously  unlike  and  opposite  that  the 
judgment  of  every  unbiassed  mind,  on 'ob- 
serving the  difference  about  to  be  pointed 
out,  would  at  once  decide  that  if  one  was 
wave-motion  the  other  could  not  be. 

I refer  to  the  patent  fact  that  sound  can 
be  heard  even  with  one  ear  closed  and 
the  open  ear  turned  directly  away  from 
the  sounding  body,  and  even  when  shielded 


i6o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


from  it  by  a large  obstructing  surface  like 
that  of  a building,  though,  of  course,  the 
sound  is  not  so  distinctly  heard  as  if  the 
ear  opened  directly  toward  the  sonorific 
| body  and  without  any  intervening  impedi- 
ment; whereas  light  can  not  swerve  to  the 
right  or  to  the  left  the  smallest  fraction  of 
an  inch,  and  can  not  be  seen  at  all,  even 
in  the  slightest  degree,  unless  it  enters  the 
eye  in  a direct  line  either  from  the  luminous 
body  or  from  some  reflecting  surface. 

If  air-waves  can  lap  around  the  head 
and  enter  the  ear  on  exactly  the  opposite 
side,  then  ether-waves — if  there  is  such  an 
all-pervading  substance  as  ether,  and  if 
there  is  any  truth  in  the  undulatory  theory 
of  light — should  do  the  same  thing,  and 
thus  enable  us  to  see  a candle  at  a distance 
in  a dark  night  with  the  back  of  the  head 
turned  directly  toward  it!  The  two  results 
are  thus  so  diametrically  opposite  that  the 
supposed  wave-motion  of  two  perfectly 
analogous  substances — air  and  ether — can 
not  explain  both. 

Even  in  the  case  of  sound  it  is  impos- 
sible to  account  for  the  phenomena  of 
hearing,  when  the  ear  is  turned  directly 
away  from  the  sounding  body,  by  the  sup- 
posed dashing  of  air-waves,  as  is  clearly 
shown  in  the  case  of  water-waves,  and  the 
complete  protection  afforded  against  their 
effects  behind  a projecting  rock  even  of 
small  dimensions.  By  means  of  such  a 
rock  that  portion  of  the  wave  striking  it  is 
utterly  broken  and  destroyed ; and  if  any 
agitation  of  the  water  takes  place  behind 
the  rock  it  is  not  the  original  wave  which 
laps  around  the  rock  at  all,  but  an  irregu- 
lar secondary  or  resultant  tremor  caused 
by  the  crispations  of  the  water  to  the  right 
and  left  produced  by  the  broken  ends  of 
Ithe  passing  waves. 

Sound,  however,  acts  in  no  such  a way, 
and  therefore  can  not  be  the  result  of 
wave-motion.  If  the  listener  is  screened 


by  an  impenetrable  wall,  for  example,  or 
a building,  the  sound  passes  around  it  and 
enters  the  ear  in  its  perfect  form  both  as 
to  pitch  and  quality,  being  only  reduced 
in  intensity;  and  if  it  consists  simply  of 
air-waves,  as  the  current  theory  teaches, 
then  these  waves,  unlike  those  of  water, 
can  lap  around  the  building,  enter  the  ear 
at  an  exactly  opposite  direction,  and  re- 
tain their  perfect  form  and  outline,  though 
broken,  distorted,  and  stopped  by  the  ob- 
struction, which  is  clearly  an  impossi- 
bility. 

This  single  fact  that  sound  is  perfectly 
unbroken  or  undistorted,  retaining  its 
quality  and  pitch  absolutely  when  the  lis- 
tener is  stationed  directly  behind  an  ob- 
structing wall,  while  a water-wave  is  com- 
pletely shattered  and  destroyed  by  an  ob- 
structing rock  without  any  power  of  in- 
flecting around  it,  alone  condemns  the  at- 
mospheric wave-theory  of  sound,  since 
every  physicist  who  has  written  on  the 
subject  tells  us  that  water-waves  and  at- 
mospheric sound-waves  are  exactly  alike. 
I do  not  exaggerate  by  italicising  the  last 
two  words  of  the  preceding  sentence.  A 
single  citation  from  Professor  Helmholtz, 
the  leading  physical  investigator  of  Ger- 
many, will  fully  sustain  this  assertion: — 

“The  process  in  the  air  is  essentially  identical 
ivith  that  on  the  surface  of  water.  . . . The  process 
which  goes  on  in  the  atmospheric  ocean  about  us 
is  of  a precisely  similar  nature.  . . . The  waves  of 
air  proceeding  from  a sounding  body  transport  the 
tremor  to  the  human  ear  exactly  in  the  same  way 
as  the  water  transports  the  tremor  produced  by  the 
stone.” — Sensations  of  Tone,  pp.  14,  15. 

Hence,  as  the  action  of  a sound-pulse  is 
thus  proved  to  be  entirely  different  from 
the  action  of  a water-wave, — the  one  re- 
taining its  perfect  form  and  symmetry 
after  passing  an  obstruction,  while  the 
other  is  entirely  broken  and  obliterated, — - 
it  becomes  a scientific  demonstration  that 
sound  is  not  constituted  of  air-waves  at 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


161 


all,  nor  propagated  by  means  of  them, 
since  this  highest  living  authority  assures 
us  that  they  are  “essentially  identical,” 
“precisely  similar,”  and  act  “exactly  in 
the  same  way”  as  water-waves!  This 
alone  breaks  down  the  wave-theory,if  there 
was  not  another  argument  against  it. 

But  the  reader  asks:  “Does  not  this 
objection  against  the  possibility  of  sound 
consisting  of  wave-motion,  because  it  can 
inflect  around  an  obstruction, militate  with 
equal  force  against  your  own  hypothesis 
of  corpuscular  emissions?  If  air-waves 
can  not  inflect,  passing,  for  example, 
around  a building,  and  thus  enter  an  ear 
turned  in  an  opposite  direction,  as  would 
seem  to  be  the  case  judging  from  the  ac- 
tion of  water-waves,  how  can  sonorous 
corpuscles,  radiating  from  a sounding  body 
in  straight  lines,  pass  around  a building 
and  enter  an  ear  under  precisely  similar 
circumstances?” 

This  would,  at  first  sight,  seem  to  be  a 
serious  objection  to  the  corpuscular  hy- 
pothesis; and,  unless  susceptible  of  being 
fairly  explained,  would  be  alone  sufficient 
to  condemn  it. 

While  this  perfect  facility  with  which 
sound  inflects,  passing  around  intervening 
obstacles, necessarily  overthrows  the  wave- 
theory, — based,  as  it  is,  on  the  undulations 
of  a corporeal  substance  like  our  atmos- 
phere, and  acting  in  all  respects  like  water- 
waves,  I will  now  try  to  show  that  it  does 
not  necessarily  break  down  nor  even  weak- 
en the  assumption  of  substantial  sonorous 
discharges,  constituted,  as  I assume,  of  ra- 
diating corpuscles. 

It  is  easily  conceivable  that  the  particles 
of  an  incorporeal  substance  (if  such  sub- 
stances can  really  exist,  of  which  I have 
elsewhere  given,  as  I consider,  ample 
proof,)  may  not  only  radiate  in  direct 
lines,  but,  as  recently  intimated,  may  throw 
secondary  corpuscles  in  the  form  of 


scintillations,  and  that  these  again  may 
radiate  other  and  still  lesser  corpuscles, 
each  system  of  which  would  be  governed 
by  the  same  law  of  diffusion  and  conduc- 
tion, and  thus  travel  through  the  conduct- 
ing medium  at  a velocity  exactly  uniform 
with  that  of  the  primary  corpuscles. 

By  means  of  such  a subdivision  of  the 
original  corpuscles  of  sound  while  they  are 
being  propagated  through  the  air,  with  the 
secondary  systems  of  lesser  particles  radi- 
ating in  all  conceivable  directions, it  is  not 
only  supposable  and  possible  for  such  off- 
shooting  systems  of  corpuscular  emissions 
to  completely  permeate  the  air  on  the  op- 
posite side  of  any  obstructing  object,  but 
it  rationally  and  philosophically  accounts, 
at  the  same  time, for  the  weakening  of  the 
intensity  of  sound  under  such  circum- 
stances, just  about  to  the  extent  univer- 
sally observed,  while  maintaining  the  pitch 
and  quality  of  the  fundamental  tone  un- 
impaired, as  will  be  hereafter  explained, 
which  can  not  be  predicated  of  wave- 
motion  with  the  undulations,  which  are 
supposed  to  give  shape  to  the  sound, 
broken  and  distorted  as  they  necessarily 
must  be  after  striking  an  impediment 
which  crosses  their  path. 

We  can  thus  not  only  imagine  the  pri- 
mary lines  of  corpuscles  darting  away 
from  the  sounding  body  in  infinite  num- 
bers, but  can  mentally  see  each  of  these 
original  particles  becoming  itself  a sep- 
arate center  of  sonorous  radiation,  and  by 
thus  watching  its  progress  can  see  it  con- 
tinually emitting,  as  it  travels  through  the 
air,  these  secondary  systems  of  corpuscles, 
while  these  in  turn  give  birth  to  a third, 
these  to  a fourth,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum 
so  far  as  human  imagination  can  follow 
them ! By  these  secondary  systems  of  cor- 
puscles generating  other  offshooting  sys- 
tems, each  constituted  of  smaller  and 
smaller  particles  and  all  succeeding  each 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


162 


other  with  such  relative  periodicity  to  the 
primary  system  of  corpuscles  as  shall  main- 
tain the  characteristic  quality  of  the  fun- 
damental tone  (to  be  fully  explained  at 
the  close  of  this  chapter),  it  is  not  at  all 
difficult  to  see  that  the  air  may  be  per- 
meated with  sound  throughout  its  most 
labyrinthian  meanderings,  the  corpuscles 
passing  by  means  of  these  succeeding  sec- 
ondary radiations  over  and  around  all 
kinds  of  obstructions,  while,  as  before  ex- 
plained, the  diminution  of  intensity  would 
seem  to  exactly  correspond  to  such  super- 
added  but  constantly  weakening  corpus- 
cular radiations. 

Thus,  while  this  hypothesis  answers  the 
purpose,  fully  accounting  for  the  hearing 
of  sound  directly  behind  an  obstructing 
wall,  it  remains  an  unanswerable  fact  that 
there  is  a spot  in  the  water  behind  every 
obstructing  rock  of  any  considerable  size 
at  which  no  movement  whatever  of  the 
interrupted  waves  can  be  perceived,  even 
if  we  admit  that  such  waves  may  partially 
lap  around  the  rock  and  cause  irregular 
crispations  inside  of  the  direct  line  of  their 
course,  which,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  the 
supposed  waves  of  ether,  they  can  not  and 
do  not  do  in  the  slightest  degree.  Even, 
therefore,  admitting  this  objection  to  be  a 
possible  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  cor- 
puscular theory,  the  weight  of  evidence  is 
clearly  against  the  wave-hypothesis,  since 
the  compound  systems  of  radiating  cor- 
puscles will  meet  the  case  with  a rational 
solution,  while  wave-motion  will  not  meet 
it  at  all. 

But  the  reader  may  ask,  how  about 
light?  If  sound  can  inflect  and  be  heard 
distinctly  behind  an  obstructing  wall,  why 
should  not  light ? And  why  should  any 
opaque  body  produce  a shadow,  since 
there  can  be  no  complete  shadow'  in  the 
case  of  sound?  I answer  that  while  my 
hypothesis  of  secondary  corpuscular  radia- 


tions explains  the  phenomena  of  sound, 
accounting  satisfactorily  for  its  power  of 
inflection  and  its  corresponding  diminu- 
tion of  intensity  after  being  thus  inflected, 
light  does  not  require  any  explanation  of 
this  kind  at  all.  No  solution  of  the  sort 
is  necessary,  because  light  does  not  inflect, 
and  therefore  needs  no  solution  on  my 
theory  to  show  why  it  does  not.  I have 
only  to  assume,  as  observation  shows,  that 
as  a ray  of  light,  passing  through  the  air, 
is  invisible  at  right  angles,  hence  its  cor- 
puscles are  devoid  of  secondary  radiative 
power,  and  that  this  evidently  is  the  reason 
why  it  can  not  bend  around  an  obstructing 
body.  While,  therefore,  I do  not  need  to 
explain  light  at  all,  to  adapt  it  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  corpuscular  radiations,  the 
wave-theory  does  need  to  explain  both 
light  and  sound,  since  the  action  of  sound, 
by  inflecting  without  being  distorted  or 
marred,  flatly  contradicts  wave-motion  as 
seen  in  water,  while  light,  by  being  devoid 
of  inflective  power, flatly  contradicts  sound, 
by  showing  that  it  can  not  be  wave-motion 
if  sound  is.  My  solution  of  the  difference 
between  light  and  sound  teaches  that  while 
sonorous  corpuscles  in  passing  through  the 
atmosphere  have  this  peculiar  power  of 
radiating  secondary  systems  of  corpuscu- 
lar emissions,  thus  enabling  sound  to  in- 
flect and  fill  its  proper  place  in  the  polity 
of  Nature,  light-corpuscles  have  no  such 
radiative  power,  and  do  not  need  it,  filling 
up  their  mission  by  their  wonderful  power 
of  reflection.  Hence,  there  is  no  inflection 
in  the  case  of  light.  This  natural  differ- 
ence between  light  and  sound  corpuscles 
is  no  more  anomalous  or  surprising  than 
the  well-known  fact  that  sound  will  freely 
pass  through  wood,  which  is  entirely  im- 
pervious to  light,  while  both  light  and 
sound  will  pass  through  glass,  which  is  a 
perfect  bar  to  the  corpuscles  of  electricity ! 

Before  returning  to  the  main  question 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


163 


I must  not  neglect  to  point  out  the  super- 
ficiality, not  to  say  absolute  fallacy,  of  this 
ratio  of  decrease  in  sound-intensity,  as  the 
square  of  the  distance  from  its  source , laid 
down  by  Professor  Tyndall,  to  which  I 
have  already  incidentally  referred,  and 
on  which  the  novel  calculations  recently 
made  touching  sound-velocity  were  based. 
But  in  exposing  this  fallacy  and  thus  being 
obliged  to  show  that  this  eminent  physicist 
has  unconsciously  perpetrated  one  of  the 
most  glaring  and  astonishing  scientific 
errors  on  record,  it  is  nothing  against  him, 
individually  considered,  since  every  au- 
thority who  has  written  on  sound,  light,  or 
heat,  including  Professors  Helmholtz  and 
Mayer,  assumes  the  same  view  and  reasons 
from  the  same  erroneous  basis  of  calcula- 
tion. It  will  take  but  a few  paragraphs  to 
expose  and  correct  this  fundamental  error 
in  science,  assumed  as  it  is  in  all  works 
on  natural  philosophy,  and  thus  show  the 
reader  what  kind  of  so-called  scientific  in- 
formation is  being  sown  broadcast  through 
the  land  for  the  enlightenment  of  our  col- 
lege students,  and  also  to  what  kind  of 
scientific  instructors  we  are  expected  to 
look  for  accurate  views  of  philosophy. 

I now  ask  by  what  scientific  authority 
does  Professor  Tyndall  adopt  “feet”  as  the 
measure  in  estimating  this  ratio  of  decrease 
in  the  loudness  of  sound?  The  reader  has 
not  forgotten  his  language, recently  quoted. 
He  says: — 

“If  its  radius  be  three  feet  it  will  contain  nine 
times  the  quantity  of  matter;  if  four  feet  it  will 
contain  sixteen  times  the  quantity  of  matter,  and 
so  on.  . . . The  intensity  or  loudness  of  sound 
diminishes  in  the  same  proportion.” 

Why  did  not  this  careful  physicist,  if  he 
is  as  careful  as  he  is  reputed  to  be,  adopt 
meters , or  rods , or  inches , or  furlongs,  or 
miles,  or  leagues,  as  his  measure,  instead  of 
“feet”?  Possibly  we  shall  find  out  the 
reason  after  a little.  Had  he  employed 


rods,  for  example,  as  his  measure  for  de- 
termining this  decrease  in  loudness  as  the 
square  of  the  distance  from  the  sounding 
body,  in  the  place  of  feet , we  would  find 
the  sound  of  the  steam  siren  at  a distance 
of  ten  miles  diminished  in  loudness  only 
the  one  10,000,000th  instead  of  the  one 
2,000,000,000th,  as  recently  seen  to  be  the 
case  when  “feet”  were  employed  as  the 
measure;  and  would  thus  have  approached 
just  two  hundred  times  nearer  to  the  truth, 
since  the  supposition  of  any  sound  being 
distinctly  audible  after  being  reduced  to 
the  one  2,000,000,000th  of  its  normal  in- 
tensity, is  so  preposterous  that  it  only 
needs  to  be  stated  to  be  refuted. 

But  suppose,  instead  of  feet  or  raft,  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  had  accidentally  stumbled 
upon  inches  as  his  measure,  which,  if  he 
had  made  it  the  subject  of  thought  at  all, 
he  had  exactly  the  same  right  to  adopt. 
His  language  would  then  have  read  like 
this : — 

“If  its  radius  be  three  inches  [from  the  center 
of  the  explosion]  it  will  contain  nine  times  the 
quantity  of  matter ; if  four  inches  it  will  contain 
sixteen  times  the  quantity  of  matter,  and  so  on.  . . . 
The  intensity  or  loudness  of  sound  diminishes  in 
the  same  proportion.” 

It  would  really  seem  that  had  this  scien- 
tist accidentally  written  inches  instead  of 
ufeet,”  while  preparing  his  lecture,  he 
would  have  at  once  seen  the  infinite  non- 
sense of  the  whole  formula,  and  would 
thus  have  overthrown  his  ratio  while  he 
was  writing  it  out. 

Let  us  suppose  the  sound  of  the  steam 
siren  to  diminish  for  ten  miles  as  the 
square  of  the  distance  from  the  sounding 
body,  and  that  we  hold  Professor  Tyndall 
rigidly  to  the  correctness  of  his  mode  of 
computing  the  ratio  of  proportionate  de- 
crease by  compelling  him  to  employ  inches 
instead  of  “feet”  as  his  measure.  Then, 
instead  of  finding  the  sound  at  the  ten-mile 


164 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


station  possessing  the  one  2,000,000,000th 
of  its  original  intensity,  as  it  necessarily 
must  have  when  “feet”  are  employed,  it 
actually  possesses  but  the  one  400,000,- 
000,000th  as  much  intensity  as  at  the  start, 
or,  in  other  words,  it  is  but  the  one  200th 
as  loud  as  it  would  be  by  adopting  “feet” 
as  the  measure!  Of  course  Professor  Tyn- 
dall never  thought  of  this,  and  I have  no 
doubt  the  idea  that  it  makes  the  least 
difference  what  measure  is  employed  in 
determining  this  proportionate  decrease 
in  the  intensity  of  sound,  will  be  news  to 
him ! If  it  is  not  news  to  him,  then  he 
manifestly  practiced  an  imposition  upon 
his  audience. 

Now  I will  not  here  deny  but  that  sound 
may  diminish  in  loudness  as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  its  source,  under  some 
sort  of  restricted  measurement.  But  I 
ask,  As  the  square  of  what  distance l Surely 
not  necessarily  the  same  measure  of  dis- 
tance employed  in  determining  the  quan- 
tity of  air  contained  in  a shell  of  a given 
thickness  and  at  a given  radius!  Professor 
Tyndall  sees  no  distinction  here;  but  after 
correctly  determining  the  quantity  of  mat- 
ter in  the  various  shells  of  air  as  the  square 
of  the  distance, making  it  at  2 feet  4 times 
the  quantity;  at  3 feet  9 times  the  quan- 
tity; at  4 feet  16  times  the  quantity,  “and 
so  on,”  he  adds:  u the  intensity  or  loudness 
of  sound  diminishes  in  the  same  proportion .” 
Yet  we  see  by  applying  his  measure  of 
“feet”  to  the  sound  of  the  siren  for  a dis- 
tance of  ten  miles  we  get  one  result,  mak- 
ing the  intensity  decrease  2,000,000,000 
times,  while  by  applying  inches , which  we 
have  the  same  right  to  do,  we  get  an  en- 
tirely different  result, making  the  intensity 
decrease  400,000,000,000  times  in  the  same 
distance!  Surely  both  are  not  correct, 
while  it  is  no  doubt  evident,  even  to  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  by  this  time,  that  neither  of 
them  can  be. 


Perhaps  we  may  aid  this  learned  physi- 
cist by  helping  him  to  a simple  rule  for 
determining  this  ratio  of  decrease  in  the 
intensity  of  sound.  In  the  first  place,  me 
may  state  it  as  a truism  which  no  one  will 
question,  that  tiie  measure  to  be  employed  in 
computing  such  proportional  decrease  in  the 
intensity  of  particular  sounds  ff  we  estimate 
by  the  square  of  the  distance  at  all , must  al- 
ways and  of  necessity  vary  exactly  in  propor- 
tion to  the  intensity  of  the  different  sounds  at 
the  start , or , in  other  words,  as  the  range  of 
the  different  sounds  varies! 

Thus,  for  example,  a very  soft  or  feeble 
sound,  though  it  may  decrease  according 
to  this  law,  as  the  square  of  the  distance 
from  its  source,  till  it  becomes  entirely  in- 
audible, the  same  exactly  as  a loud  sound 
diminishes,  yet  manifestly  the  measure 
to  be  employed  in  estimating  its  compara- 
tive decrease  must  be  small  in  proportion 
to  that  of  a loud  sound.  Instead  of  feet, 
meters,  rods,  or  furlongs,  in  such  a case 
it  might  require  inches,  quarter  inches, 
or  even  lines,  to  get  the  proper  result. 
Another  sound  of  greater  range,  or  of 
greater  intensity  at  the  start,  might  have 
its  proportionate  decrease  in  intensity 
approximately  computed  by  employing 
“feet”  as  the  measure, — while  a very  loud 
sound,  such  as  that  of  the  steam  siren, 
having  a range  of  ten  miles,  would  evi- 
dently require  a long  measure  to  even 
approximate  the  true  proportion.  The 
superficiality,  in  a case  of  this  kind,  of 
using  “feet”  as  the  measure  of  computing 
the  decrease,  which  Professor  Tyndall 
makes  alike  applicable  to  the  intensity  of 
all  sounds,  without  any  discrimination,  has 
been  fully  shown. 

Let  11s  now  suppose  the  measure  suitable 
for  a sound  having  the  range  of  the  steam 
siren  to  be  half  miles  instead  of  feet  or 
inches.  The  statement  of  its  ratio  of  de- 
crease in  loudness  would  then  read  some- 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


165 


thing  like  this:  At  two  half  miles  from  the 
instrument  the  intensity  of  the  sound 
would  be  but  one  fourth  what  it  is  as  it 
leaves  the  siren;  at  three  half  miles  the 
intensity  would  be  but  one  ninth ; at  four 
half  miles  the  intensity  would  be  but  one 
sixteenth , and  so  on ; and  at  twenty  half 
miles  the  intensity  would  have  diminished, 
by  such  a measure  of  ratio,  to  one  four 
hundredth  of  what  it  was  at  the  start,  which 
would  manifestly  approximate  the  correct 
proportion  of  decrease  at  that  distance, 
instead  of  putting  it  at  the  preposterous 
reduction  of  one  2,000,000,000th  of  its 
original  intensity,  as  the  accidental  meas- 
ure of  this  eminent  authority  would  neces- 
sarily make  it. 

I say  accidental , because  it  is  entirely 
certain,  in  reading  his  statement  of  this 
law  governing  such  ratio  of  decrease  in 
loudness  “as  the  square  of  the  distance,” 
already  quoted,  that  he  had  not  the  most 
remote  idea  that  it  would  make  any  differ- 
ence what  measure  was  employed  in  com- 
puting such  comparative  decrease, — sup- 
posing, as  any  one  can  see  by  reading  his 
statement,  that  the  result  would  be  exactly 
the  same  whether  he  used  miles,  rods,  feet, 
or  inches,  or  otherwise  he  would  surely 
never  have  employed  “feet”  without  some 
sort  of  qualification  as  to  the  range  of  the 
sound  to  be  taken  into  account,  thus  com- 
mitting himself, as  he  has  done, to  a fallacy 
in  science  of  which  he  will  be  ashamed  as 
long  as  he  lives. 

As  a proof  that  this  view  of  the  matter 
is  correct,  it  is  evident  if  ProfessorTyndall 
had  been  explaining  the  decrease  in  the 
intensity  of  light,  as  the  square  of  the  dis- 
tance from  the  sun,  he  would  never  have 
used  “feet”  as  the  measure!  Why?  Be- 
cause he  would  have  intuitively  felt,  pos- 
sibly without  asking  the  reason  why,  that 
a mathematical  progression  based  on  so 
small  a measure  for  such  an  enormous 


distance  would  have  been  simply  ridicu- 
lous! Yet  he  tells  us  that, — 

“The  action  of  sound  thus  illustrated  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  of  light  and  radiant  heat.  They, 
like  sound,  are  wave-motions.  Like  sound  they 
diffuse  themselves  in  space,  diminishing  in  inten- 
sity according  to  the  same  law." — Lectures  on  Sound, 
P-  13. 

In  estimating  the  ratio  of  decrease  in 
the  intensity  of  the  sun’s  light,  as  the 
square  of  the  distance,  this  physicist  would 
probably  not  think  of  using  a less  measure 
than  miles;  yet  even  this  would  be  vastly 
too  small  to  express  the  true  ratio  of  de- 
crease, as  it  would  make  the  proportion 
of  solar  light  on  the  earth  but  the  one 
9,000,000,000,000,000th  of  its  intensity  at 
the  sun,  which  is  an  almost  infinite  ex- 
aggeration of  the  facts  in  the  case.  In- 
stead of  the  measure  for  properly  express- 
ing this  ratio  being  miles,  if  it  were  million 
miles  it  would  be  much  more  nearly  cor- 
rect, thus  making  the  intensity  of  the  sun’s 
light  on  the  earth  but  the  one  nine  thou- 
sandth of  what  it  actually  is  in  contact 
with  the  photosphere  of  that  luminary. 

But  the  clearest  demonstration  of  the 
superficiality  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  use 
of  “feet”  in  his  ratio  for  determining  the 
decrease  in  a sound’s  intensity  (leaving  us 
to  infer  that  the  same  measure  was  appli- 
cable to  all  sounds)  is  the  fact  that  the 
entire  range  of  many  sounds  is  less  than  a 
foot ! The  music  of  the  midge,  for  ex- 
ample, as  recently  stated,  is  inaudible  at 
the  distance  of  a foot,  though  intensely 
audible  if  performed,  as  it  often  is,  near 
the  entrance  to  the  auricular  passage. 

Now,  this  sound,  like  all  others,  de- 
creases in  loudness  according  to  the  same 
uniform  law,  call  it  “as  the  square  of  the 
distance  from  its  source”  if  you  like,  to 
the  extreme  limit  of  its  audibility,  which 
it  does  as  literally  and  truly  as  does  the 
sound  of  a steam  siren  with  its  effective 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


1 66 

range  of  ten  miles.  Yet  how  laughably 
absurd  it  would  be  to  apply  Professor 
Tyndall’s  measure  of  “feet”  to  the  music 
of  these  ephemera!  Let  us  try  it:  If  the 
distance  from  the  midge  be  two  feet  the 
loudness  of  the  sound  will  be  one  fourth j if 
the  distance  be  three  feet  the  loudness  will 
be  one  ninth;  if  the  distance  be  four  feet 
the  loudness  will  be  one  sixteenth,  and  so  on! 
Yet  the  sound  entirely  ceases  within  a 
single  foot,  and  thus  passes  through  all 
the  gradations  of  decrease  “as  the  square 
of  the  distance;”  and  even  through  a 
greater  progression  of  diminution  within 
this  foot  than  the  sound  of  the  fog-horn 
passes  through  in  a range  of  ten  miles, 
since  it  is  still  distinctly  heard  at  that  dis- 
tance! To  employ  “feet,”  therefore,  in 
computing  the  ratio  of  decrease  in  the 
loudness  of  the  sound  of  a gnat  would  be 
a measure  about  as  much  out  of  propor- 
tion one  way  as  it  would  be  enormously 
too  small  when  applied  to  the  sound  of 
the  steam  siren.  It  is  therefore  manifestly 
evident  that  these  beautiful  distinctions, 
equally  applicable  to  decrease  in  the  in- 
tensity of  sound,  light,  and  heat,  which 
seem  so  self-evident  that  a schoolboy  who 
had  used  a slate  and  pencil  for  a single 
month  ought  to  have  noted  them,  never 
entered  the  mind  of  this  eminent  lecturer, 
who  is  quoted  as  standard  authority  in 
physical  science  all  over  the  land,  and 
whose  works  on  sound,  light,  and  heat  are 
so  eagerly  sought  for  by  scientific  students 
among  all  nations  that  they  have  been 
already  translated  into  the  principal  lan- 
guages of  Europe! 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  amplification  of 
the  wave-theory  at  every  turn,  even  in  the 
hands  of  its  ablest  exponents,  necessitates 
the  employment  of  laws,  formulas,  and 
ratios,  which,  when  analyzed,  are  found 
not  only  to  be  pitiably  insufficient,  but 
completely  subversive  of  undeniable  facts 


of  science  and  well-known  principles  cf 
mechanics. 

Though  I have  been  thus  forced  into  a 
digression  from  the  main  argument  based 
on  the  supposition  of  ‘ condensations  and 
rarefactions,”  in  order  to  explain  the  cor- 
puscular hypothesis,  and  also  to  correct 
Professor  Tyndall’s  misapprehension  as 
to  the  proportional  diminution  of  sound- 
intensity,  thus  reducing  the  decrease  in 
the  sound  of  a steam  siren  from  one 
2,ooo,ooo,ooolh  of  its  intensity,  according 
to  his  ratio,  to  about  one  400th,  still  it 
does  not  weaken  the  argument  drawn 
from  such  diminution,  by  which  I showed 
a corresponding  decrease  or  increase  in 
sound-velocity.  It  only  brings  the  fatal 
effect  of  the  heat  hypothesis  of  Laplace 
within  the  comprehension  of  the  mathe- 
matician. It  still  remains  an  unanswerable 
fact,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  solution 
of  Laplace  or  in  the  idea  of  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions”  of  the  air  produced 
by  sound,  that  the  velocity  of  sound  and 
the  loudness  of  sound  must  correspond- 
ingly increase  and  decrease  together,  since 
the  augmentation  of  velocity  depends  upon 
the  amount  of  heat  generated,  just  as  the 
heat  depends  upon  the  amount  of  the  con- 
densation, while  it  is  also  upon  the  difference 
of  density  that  loudness  depends.  Hence,  the 
heat  solution  of  Laplace  based  on  such 
condensations  of  the  atmosphere  must 
necessarily  be  a fallacy. 

As  all  physicists  will  admit  that  this  dis- 
crepancy of  Newton  overthrows  the  wave 
hypothesis  unless  it  is  susceptible  of  a 
satisfactory  scientific  explanation  which 
will  reconcile  it  with  the  observed  ve- 
locity of  sound,  and  since  the  heat  solu- 
tion of  Laplace — the  only  one  ever  claimed 
to  meet  the  difficulty — turns  out  to  be  not 
only  no  solution  at  all,  but  an  unmitigated 
scientific  excrescence,  literally  lugged  into 
the  theory  to  meet  a desperate  emergency. 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


may  we  not  fairly  conclude  that,  as  the 
question  now  stands,  the  discrepancy  of 
Newton  still  remains  unimpaired, and  con- 
sequently that  the  wave-theory  now  occu- 
pies the  anomalous  position  of  an  edifice 
whose  foundation  is  utterly  shattered? 

Even  if  the  unanswerable  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  this  hypothesis  of  Laplace  now 
being  presented  had  never  been  named 
or  thought  of,  the  supposed  relation  of  den- 
sity to  elasticity  as  the  law  which  deter- 
mines the  velocity  of  sound  through  all 
bodies,  and  on  the  analysis  of  which  La- 
place formulated  his  solution,  can  be 
shown  beyond  all  question  to  have  no 
foundation  in  science  or  in  fact,  being 
purely  chimerical,  and  contradicted  by  the 
observed  velocity  of  sound  through  va- 
rious well-known  substances  in  addition 
to  our  atmosphere, so  signally  demonstrated 
in  Newton’s  calculation  to  be  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  law.  This  relation  of 
the  density  of  a body  to  its  elasticity  as  the 
basis  of  sound-velocity  through  all  bodies, 
like  the  wave-theory  which  it  supports,  is 
a mere  hypothesis  fabricated  and  formu- 
lated for  a specific  purpose  out  of  a few 
superficial  observations, — invented, in  fact, 
to  aid  wave-motion  by  systematizing  its 
principles,  the  bottom  of  which  is  shown, 
the  moment  it  is  held  up  to  the  light,  to 
have  fallen  out  in  the  time  of  Sir  Isaac 
Newton.  If  there  were  nothing  else  to 
prove  my  assertion  true,  that  single  dem- 
onstration of  Newton,  in  his  careful  anal- 
ysis of  the  density  and  elasticity  of  the 
air,  shows  that  this  universal  medium  of 
sound-conduction  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  hypothesis,  unless  aided  by  the  heat 
solution  of  Laplace,  which,  when  exam- 
ined, turns  out  to  be  grotesquely  imprac- 
ticable, having  been  formulated,  as  just 
shown,  without  the  shadow  of  science  or 
reason  to  justify  it,  since  there  is  neither 
condensation  nor  heat  produced  by  sound. 


167 

At  the  time  Newton  made  this  discov- 
ery, physicists  who  advocated  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  appeared  intuitively  to 
agree  among  themselves  that  if  this  single 
discrepancy  in  their  formula  could,  by 
hook  or  by  crook,  be  reconciled,  and  the 
difficulty  successfully  explained  away,  their 
theoretic  coast  would  be  clear,  and  that 
all  other  bodies  or  substances  whatever  as 
sound-conductors  could  be  readily  made 
to  fall  into  line  and  quiescently  conform 
to  this  law  of  density  and  elasticity.  Yet 
one  would  have  supposed,  after  Newton 
had  thus  shown  by  undeniable  figures  and 
facts  that  this  law  of  velocity  was  wrong 
as  related  to  atmosphere,  by  a palpable 
discrepancy  of  174  feet  a second,  that 
physicists  would  have  weakened  sufficient- 
ly at  least  to  look  around  them  and  see 
if  it  were  not  possible  for  other  bodies 
through  which  sound  travels  to  show  like 
indications  of  rebellion  against  their  law. 
Instead  of  doing  so,  they  bent  all  their 
energies  to  the  one  task  of  overcoming 
this  single  admitted  contradiction  of  the 
wave-theory  as  based  on  the  known  elas- 
ticity and  density  of  the  air,  making  all 
sorts  of  ingenious  suggestions  without  suc- 
cess, till  at  last  the  scientific  mountain, 
having  labored,  brought  forth  this  con- 
temptibly small  and  ludicrously  deformed 
mouse  of  Laplace! 

Professor  Tyndall  briefly  states  this  law 
of  density  and  elasticity  as  applied  to  the 
air,  which  is  equally  applicable  to  all  other 
kinds  of  sound-conductors,  as  follows:— 

“The  velocity  of  sound  in  air  depends  on  the 
elasticity  of  the  air  in  relation  to  its  density.  The 
greater  is  the  elasticity  the  swifter  is  the  propagation; 
the  greater  the  density  the  slower  is  the  propagation." 
— Lectures  on  Sound , p.  45. 

Now,  as  a matter  of  course,  if  a body 
could  be  found  having  great  density  and 
tio  elasticity,  it  is  clear,  if  there  is  any  foun- 
dation for  this  law,  sound  should  not  travel 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


1 68 


through  such  a substance  at  all,  since  this 
is  evidently  what  the  law  means  if  it  means 
anything.  Such  a body  we  have  in  lead. 
It  is  not  only  among  the  densest  of  metals, 
but  is  almost  entirely  devoid  of  elasticity 
(as  much  so  nearly  as  a mass  of  putty), 
according  to  every  known  definition  of  the 
term  elasticity  given  in  our  dictionaries. 
Yet  it  is  a fact,  as  admitted  by  Professor 
Tyndall  himself  (. Lectures  on  Sound , p.  39), 
that  sound  travels  through  lead  with  a ve- 
locity of  over  4,000  feet  a second,  or  nearly 
four  times  its  velocity  in  air!  What,  then, 
becomes  of  this  formidable  law  based  on 
the  relation  of  density  to  elasticity? 

I see  no  way  for  scientific  investigators 
to  get  over  this  new  leaden  difficulty,  un- 
less some  modern  Laplace  will  invent 
another  hypothesis,  based,  say,  on  the  pe- 
culiar molecular  structure  of  this  metal, 
and  show  by  some  sort  of  an  elaborate 
formula  that  a sufficient  amount  of  elec- 
tricity is  generated  by  the  passage  of  a 
sound-wave  through  it  to  counterpoise 
this  lack  of  elasticity!  Possibly  the  fa- 
cility with  which  lead  fuses  might  interfere 
somewhat  with  the  generation  of  a suffi- 
cient electrical  current  to  meet  the  con- 
ditions of  the  new  hypothesis.  At  all 
events,  it  could  be  easily  modified  in  half 
a dozen  ways  to  make  a much  more  plaus- 
ible showing  than  the  original  Laplace 
made  in  adding  174  feet  a second  to  the 
velocity  of  sound  in  air  on  the  ground  of 
the  generation  of  heat  by  sonorous  “con- 
densations and  rarefactions”  which  never 
had  an  existence,  and  never  can  have,  ex- 
cept in  the  highly  wrought  fancy  of  phys- 
icists. 

But  supposing  this  formula  to  be  ad- 
justed to  suit  the  molecular  structure  of 
lead,  there  would  be  a similar  trouble  at 
once  with  pure  gold  and  copper , which  are 
likewise  practically  devoid  of  elasticity, 
though  they  are  among  the  densest  of 


metals.  Yet  this  same  high  authority  as- 
sures us  that  sound  actually  travels  through 
gold  at  a velocity  of  5,000  feet  a second, 
and  through  copper  at  a velocity  of  11,000 
feet,  or  ten  times  its  velocity  through  the 
atmosphere,  which  is  known  to  be  among 
the  most  elastic  and  least  dense  of  physical 
bodies!  (See  Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  39.) 

The  truth  is,  this  so-called  “law”  as  the 
basis  of  sound-velocity,  formulated  on  the 
relation  of  density  to  elasticity,  is  as  fallacious 
as  is  the  wave-theory  built  upon  it,  and  the 
two  hypotheses  therefore  are  well  matched, 
being  equally  destitute  of  scientific  foun- 
dation. Hence,  we  are  again  brought 
around,  almost  unexpectedly,  to  the  same 
great  scientific  and  natural  fact  that  sound 
travels  through  all  bodies  with  a velocity 
and  facility  exactly  commensurate  with 
their  conductive  quality,  whatever  that 
may  consist  in,  depending  on  molecular 
structure, — that  is,  the  relative  position 
and  arrangement  of  their  ultimate  atoms, 
— and  perhaps  other  conditions  at  present 
unknown,  the  same  as  those  under  which 
electricity  travels  and  by  which  it  is  gov- 
erned, though  each  acts  under  the  control 
of  laws  peculiar  to  itself.  No  man  can 
tell  why  electricity  passes  through  copper 
or  silver  with  greater  facility  than  through 
iron  or  platinum;  nor  can  any  one  formu- 
late a law  of  elasticity,  or  density,  or  com- 
pressibility, or  porosity,  or  ductility,  or 
malleability,  which  will  explain  why  elec- 
tricity will  not  pass,  for  example,  through 
glass  at  all,  which  is  the  best  known  con- 
ductor of  sound,  so  far  as  velocity  is  con- 
cerned. 

These  laws  of  conduction,  radiation, 
diffusion,  attraction,  repulsion,  &c.,  as  be- 
fore remarked,  are  among  the  unknown, 
and,  at  present,  unknowable  mysteries  of 
Nature.  Whenever  we  shall  accept  the 
great  fundamental  truth  that  we  are  sur- 
1 rounded  with  substantial  but  incorporeal 


Chat.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


169 


entities,  such  as  light,  heat,  sound,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism,  gravitation,  &c.,  whose 
laws  and  principles  of  operation,  as  inscru- 
table as  their  author,  lie  hidden  in  the 
Ultimate  Causation  of  all  things,  the  rela- 
tions of  which,  as  well  as  their  modes  of 
operation,  can  only  be  apprehended  by 
mortals  in  the  contemplation  of  their  cor- 
poreal results  through  experiment  and  ob- 
servation, we  shall  then  have  arrived  at  a 
much  better  mental  condition  for  the  at- 
tainment of  true  scientific  knowledge  than 
by  assuming  pretentious  laws  and  formu- 
lating elaborate  hypotheses  for  the  expli- 
cation of  the  unsolvable  mysteries  of  Na- 
ture, and  which,  as  recently  witnessed, 
contravene  not  only  the  unalterable  de- 
crees of  mathematics,  but  render  nugatory 
the  stubborn  facts  of  mechanics  exempli- 
fied in  the  constant  experience  of  every 
living  creature. 

When  the  discrepancy,  of  which  I have 
been  speaking,  of  174  feet  a second  be- 
tween the  observed  and  the  calculated 
velocity  of  sound,  was  first  discovered  by 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  he  should  have  at  once 
abandoned  the  undulatory  theory  of  sound 
as  a practical  absurdity,  contradicted  in 
its  fundamental  principles  by  the  observed 
facts  of  Nature,  and  thus  have  saved  the 
world  the  demonstrated  result  not  only  of 
sound  traveling  at  a velocity  of  66,000,000 
miles  a second,  as  logically  deduced  in  the 
case  of  the  steam  siren,  but  the  infinitely 
impossible  performance  of  an  insect  shak- 
ing four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  into 
“condensations  and  rarefactions”  by  the 
movement  of  its  tiny  legs  in  the  free  air, 
thus  exerting  a mechanical  force  of  5,000,- 
000,000  tons,  according  to  the  plainest 
vulgar  fractions  furnished  by  Professor 
Mayer,  or  66,000,000,000,000  tons,  as 
shown  by  the  indisputable  heat  and  pres- 
sure figures  of  Professor  Tyndall  made 
necessary  by  the  solution  of  Laplace. 


No!  Instead  of  doing  such  a sensible 
thing  as  at  once  giving  up  the  hypothesis 
as  untenable,  Newton  took  it  for  granted 
that  nothing  but  the  wave-theory  would 
answer  the  purpose,  or  have  any  effect  in 
solving  the  problems  of  sound,  since  it 
was  at  that  time,  as  it  is  now,  the  univer- 
sally accepted  hypothesis;  and  hence  he 
began  to  cast  about  for  some  sort  of  ex- 
planation of  this  discrepancy  which  might 
reconcile  it  with  the  observed  velocity  of 
sound,  and  which,  as  already  seen,  finally 
culminated  in  the  enormous  folly  of  La- 
place’s solution,  involving  the  actual  gen- 
eration of  heat,  by  the  singing  of  a locust, 
sufficient  to  raise  a full  head  of  steam  in 
twelve  hundred  million  locomotive-boilers  at 
one  time , as  any  mathematician  can  calcu- 
late by  transferring  the  heat  thus  generated 
in  the  condensed  half  of  the  air  to  the 
proper  number  of  cubic  feet  of  water! 

A more  astounding  want  of  philosophical 
sagacity  than  was  thus  exhibited  by  N e wton 
and  his  contemporaries  in  not  giving  up 
the  wave-theory  as  a fallacy  of  science, 
after  its  foundation  had  been  swept  away, 
is  not  on  record,  and  it  will  be  so  regarded 
by  future  physicists  while  books  are  read. 

But  here,  unexpectedly,  this  locust  can 
render  me  another  little  service  by  showing 
how  easy  it  is  for  a false  theory  to  contra- 
dict itself  when  it  comes  down  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  details.  I have  already  given 
numerous  examples  of  this  kind  from  the 
writings  of  these  eminent  physicists  whom 
I have  the  honor  of  reviewing;  but  those 
are  only  mere  specimens  of  what  may  yet 
be  expected,  and  of  which  these  works  on 
sound  are  necessarily  full  from  beginning 
to  end.  This  is  no  exaggeration;  for  it  is 
practically  impossible  for  the  ablest  advo- 
cates of  the  theory,  in  writing  an  extended 
treatise  on  the  subject,  to  discuss  the  de- 
tails of  one  branch  or  one  class  of  phe- 
nomena, without  flatly  contradicting  the 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


170 


principles,  ratios,  and  laws  enunciated 
when  treating  on  another,  owing  to  the 
inherent  incongruity  necessarily  subsisting 
between  the  different  elements  of  every 
erroneous  hypothesis.  Of  this  the  reader, 
if  not  already  convinced,  will  be  amply 
assured  as  the  review  progresses. 

I now  propose  to  prove,  by  Professor 
Tyndall  himself,  that  this  insect,  which 
can  be  heard  a mile  in  all  directions,  and 
which  has  been  so  provokingly  used  against 
the  wave-theory,  can  not  by  any  possibility 
stir  the  air  more  than  a few  feet  around  it. 
In  doing  so,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  does  not 
require  the  overwhelming  mathematical 
arguments  here  being  presented  to  shatter 
the  hypothesis.  I only  need  to  let  this 
most  popular  exponent  of  the  theory  speak 
out,  as  he  plainly  does  in  numerous  places, 
and  then  array  his  language  in  proper 
order  before  the  reader  to  annihilate  the 
very  foundation  of  the  wave-hypothesis. 

The  reader  no  doubt  remembers  that 
when  this  lecturer  was  trying  to  explain 
to  his  audience  the  principles  of  resonance, 
and  how  it  was  that  a sounding-board  aug- 
mented the  tone  of  a string  (examined  at 
page  82),  he  gave  a demonstration  of  the 
well-known  fact  that  a string  stretched 
over  rigid  pieces  of  iron,  unconnected 
with  wood,  produces  no  sensible  effect 
upon  the  auditory  nerve  even  half  a dozen 
feet  from  it,  however  vigorously  it  may  be 
caused  to  vibrate.  He  then  undertakes 
to  explain  this  to  his  audience,  and  the 
reason  he  assigns  why  we  hear  no  sound 
is  that  a harp-string  or  piano-string  is  too 
“thin  a body”  to  produce  any  “sensible  ’ 
effect  upon  the  “ air ”/  As  this  argument 
on  resonance  is  important,  and  conclusive- 
ly wipes  out  the  wave-theory  when  applied 
to  the  stridulation  of  the  locust,  I will  re- 
quote his  words  consecutively,  that  the 
reader  may  not  fail  to  see  their  force.  He 
says: — 


“It  is  not  the  chords  of  a harp,  or  a lute,  or  a 
piano,  or  a violin,  that  throw  the  air  into  sonorous 
vibrations.  It  is  the  large  surfaces  with  which  they 
are  associated,  and  the  air  inclosed  by  these  sur- 
faces.”— Lectures  on  Sound , p.  88. 

I now  ask  Professor  Tyndall  why  it  is 
that  the  vibrating  string,  “swiftly  advan- 
cing,” as  he  says  in  another  place,  carving 
and  moulding  the  air  into  “sonorous  waves,” 
and  sending  them  off  in  the  form  of  “con- 
densations and  rarefactions”  at  a velocity 
of  ri2o  feet  a second,  can  not  at  this  par- 
ticular juncture  “ throw  the  air  into  sono- 
rous vibrations"  at  all?  He  answers : — 

“The  amount  of  motion  communicated  by  a vi- 
brating string  to  the  air  is  loo  small  to  be  perceived 
as  sound  even  at  a small  distance  from  the  string.” 

“The  sonorous  waves  which  at  present  strike 
your  ears  do  not  proceed  immediately  from  the 
string.  The  amount  of  motion  which  so  thin  a body 
imparts  to  the  air  is  loo  small  to  be  sensible  at  any 
distance.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  87,  125. 

This  suicidal  admission  establishes  pre- 
cisely what  I have  been  all  the  time  con- 
tending for  since  the  commencement  of 
this  chapter,  namely,  that  “so  thin  a body” 
as  a string  or  a tuning-fork , especially  with 
such  a trifling  aggregate  velocity  as  only 
seven  or  eight  inches  a second,  can  not  by 
any  possibility  drive  air-waves  even  “ a small 
distance"  from  such  string  or  fork!  Here 
it  is  unwittingly  admitted  to  be  true,  since 
“the  amount  of  motion  which  so  thin  a body 
imparts  to  the  air  is  too  small  to  be  sensible 
at  any  distance"! 

Notwithstanding  these  contradictory  ad- 
missions, with  which  a schoolboy  could 
overwhelm  the  undulatory  theory,  this 
great  physicist  teaches,  as  he  is  compelled 
to  do  unless  he  utterly  renounces  air-waves 
as  the  means  of  sound-propagation,  that  a 
locust,  weighing  not  a hundredth  part  as 
much  as  a harp-string  which  produces  the 
same  tone,  and  having  no  strong  man’s 
fingers  to  pluck  it,  and  thus  “mould,” 
“carve,”  and  “send”  off  aerial  undulations, 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


171 


is  capable,  while  sitting  on  a green  leaf, 
and  without  any  “large  surfaces”  to  act  as 
sounding-boards,  by  the  simple  movement 
of  its  tiny,  threadlike  legs,  of  generating 
an  atmospheric  disturbance  which  fills 
four  cubic  miles  with  “condensations  and 
rarefactions,”  the  atmospheric  pressure  of 
which  generates  heat  sufficient  to  add  174 
feet  a second  to  the  normal  velocity  of  the 
sound  throughout  this  vast  area!  Was 
there  ever  a more  ridiculous  position  over- 
thrown by  a more  maladroit  and  suicidal 
self-stultification? 

Instead  of  physicists  any  longer  teaching 
atmospheric  wave-motion  as  the  true  cause 
of  sound-propagation,  let  it  now  be  pro- 
claimed to  the  scientific  world  that  this 
“highest  living  authority”  on  sound,  as 
Professor  Youmans  designates  him,  in  the 
most  unmistakable  language,  has  aban- 
doned the  wave-theory,  and  has  admitted 
that  a locust  does  not  and  can  not  produce 
its  wondrous  stridulation,  heard  a mile  in 
all  directions,  by  means  of  air-waves,  un- 
less he  shall  publicly  repudiate  his  state- 
ments just  quoted,  namely,  that  “The 
amount  of  motion  which  so  thin  a body  im- 
parts to  the  air  is  too  small  to  be  sensible  at 
any  distance ,”  or  “too  small  to  be  perceived 
as  sound  even  at  a small  distance  f rom  the 
string”  or  insect! 

He  surely  will  not  pretend  to  claim, after 
these  reiterated  and  voluntary  statements, 
— admissions  of  facts  in  regard  to  the  string 
and  its  limited  tone  which  are  patent,  un- 
deniable, and  unavoidable,  on  his  part, — 
that  the  legs  of  a locust  can  produce  any 
more  effect  on  the  air  than  can  a harp-chord 
of  a hundred  times  the  size  and  a thousand 
times  the  weight  If  not,  what  then  be- 
comes of  the  helpless  wave-theory,  deserted 
by  its  best  friend  and  ablest  defender?  If 
he  utters  the  truth  in  what  he  here  says, 
and  repeats  in  different  forms  in  regard  to 
a powerful  sonometer-string,  namely,  that 


“the  amount  of  motion  which  so  thin  a body 
imparts  to  the  air  is  too  small  to  be  sensible 
at  any  distance ,”  and  “ too  small  to  be  per- 
ceived as  sound  JKgPmv/  at  a small  distance 
from  the  string,"  can  it  possibly  be  true,  or 
anything  short  of  an  unmitigated  falsifica- 
tion of  science  and  fact,  when  he  teaches, 
as  he  is  obliged  to  do  unless  he  renounces 
the  wave-theory,  that  the  legs  of  an  insect, 
moved  with  less  than  a thousandth  part  of 
the  vis  viva  applied  to  the  string,  actually 
hurls  the  air  into  waves  which  are  “ perceived 
as  sound”  a mile  away,  and  which  fills  four 
square  miles  with“  sensible”  sonorous  pulses? 
And,  finally,  has  not  Professor  Tyndall 
flatly  admitted  that  the  sound  of  this  insect 
is  not  and  can  not  be  produced  by  any  un- 
dulatory  movement  of  the  air  possible  to 
be  produced  by  “so  thin  a body”  as  the 
legs  of  a locust?  And  if  so,  is  it  not  an 
unconditional  surrender  of  the  wave- 
theory,  and  an  unintended  confession  that 
the  whole  hypothesis  is  a pure  fallacy  of 
science?  If  this  is  not  what  his  admissions 
amount  to,  under  the  most  liberal  con- 
struction, then  I confess  I have  no  correct 
understanding  of  the  English  language. 

I now  make  the  unqualified  assertion, 
which  I believe  the  unbiassed  judgment 
of  the  reader  can  but  approve,  that  there 
is  not  a man  living  competent  to  reason 
on  any  question  of  science,  or  qualified  to 
draw  a logical  conclusion  from  established 
premises,  who,  with  these  admissions  of 
Professor  Tyndall  as  his  guide,  can  believe 
it  possible  for  a locust  to  stir  a single  cubic 
perch  of  atmosphere  by  the  motion  of  its 
threadlike  legs,  to  say  nothing  of  its  ability 
to  churn  into  “condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions” four  cubic  miles  of  air,  not  only 
causing  its  particles,  as  Professor  Mayer 
expresses  it,  to  “swing  to  and  fro  with  the 
motions  of  pendulums,”  but  to  generate 
sufficient  heat  to  add  “one  sixth”  to  the 
velocity  of  its  sound! 


172 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


To  suppose  any  man  capable  of  believ- 
ing, after  the  foregoing  citations  (supposing 
Professor  Tyndall’s  views  correct  as  to 
the  effects  on  the  air  of  a vibrating  string), 
that  so  diminutive  a creature  as  a locust 
can  actually  convert  such  a vast  atmos- 
pheric area  into  “condensations  and  rare- 
factions,” exerting  a pressure  sufficient  to 
generate  the  heat  involved  in  the  hypoth- 
esis of  Laplace,  would  be  to  suppose  him 
hopelessly  insane  and  mentally  irrespon- 
sible for  his  acts. 

The  reader  may  now  pertinently  ask 
how  it  is  possible  that  a pretended  scien- 
tific theory,  so  utterly  devoid  of  founda- 
tion in  fact  and  so  ridiculously  absurd  in 
reason  and  philosophy  as  the  foregoing 
arguments  appear  to  make  this,  should 
have  continued  to  exist  from  generation 
to  generation,  and  to  be  accepted  as  true 
science  by  the  most  enlightened  and  critic- 
al minds  of  the  world,  in  all  ages.  Why, 
he  may  appropriately  inquire,  has  not  some 
one  else,  of  all  the  thousands  who  have 
investigated  this  question,  made  the  im- 
portant discovery,  if  discovery  it  be,  that 
the  wave-theory  is  a baseless  fallacy,  with 
all  these  mechanical  facts  and  funda- 
mental considerations  as  open  to  examina- 
tion and  as  susceptible  of  being  under- 
stood by  every  other  physicist  as  by  the 
writer  of  this  monograph? 

I can  only  say,  in  reply  to  this  natural 
inquiry,  that  the  blinding  effect  of  a uni- 
versally accepted  theory,  however  false 
and  absurd,  handed  down  from  one  gen- 
eration to  another,  indorsed  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  greatest  intellects,  and  the  ten- 
dency of  such  a theory  to  stifle  doubt  and 
paralyze  critical  investigation  as  to  the 
foundation  on  which  it  rests,  and  thus  to 
prevent  the  origination  of  any  inquiry  con- 
cerning its  conflicting  phenomena,  except 
so  far  as  to  harmonize  them  with  its  ad- 
mitted scientific  basis,  is  one  of  the  most 


singular,  as  well  as  one  of  the  best  estab- 
lished psychical  facts  in  the  history  of  in- 
tellectual progress. 

The  Ptolemaic  theory  of  astronomy, 
which  made  the  earth  the  center  of  the 
universe,  and  taught  that  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  revolved  around  it  every  twenty- 
four  hours,  and  which  had  stood  for  two 
thousand  years  comparatively  unchal- 
lenged, just  because  each  preceding  gen- 
eration had  passed  it  along  to  the  next 
without  calling  its  fundamental  principles 
in  question,  though  philosophers  of  every 
age,  from  the  time  of  the  Ptolemys  down, 
had  been  terribly  puzzled  over  its  contra- 
dictory details,  furnishes  a vivid  illustra- 
tion of  the  tendency  of  any  theory,  which 
has  existed  for  centuries,  to  close  up,  by 
the  accumulating  debris  of  ages,  all  the 
passages  which  at  its  commencement  may 
have  led  to  the  subcellar  and  to  its  very 
foundation-walls. 

This  very  difficulty,  which  so  puzzles  the 
reader,  as  to  how  it  is  possible  for  the 
wave-theory  to  have  remained  unshaken 
for  so  many  generations,  without  a single 
physicist  venturing  to  call  it  in  question 
or  expose  its  self-evident  absurdities,  and 
yet  that  it  should  be  all  the  while  false 
and  without  the  least  foundation  in  fact 
or  science,  was  precisely  the  argument 
made  use  of  in  the  time  of  Copernicus 
and  Gallileo  in  favor  of  still  continuing 
to  adhere  to  the  Ptolemaic  hypothesis! 
Gallileo  replied  to  this  reasoning  that  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  new  hypothesis 
must  be  judged  by  the  weight  of  facts  and 
the  force  of  mathematical  deductions,  and 
not  by  superficial  appearances  or  the  plea 
of  authority  based  on  what  philosophers 
may  have  taught  in  ages  past; — that  some 
one  had  to  be  the  first  to  discover  any  new 
scientific  truth,  and  especially  to  find  out 
the  true  relations  existing  between  the 
earth  and  the  other  members  of  the  solar 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


173 


system,  and  their  relation  one  to  another . 
and  that  Copernicus, out  of  all  the  millions 
who  had  thought  upon  the  subject,  hap- 
pened to  combine  the  particular  qualifica- 
tions and  to  be  trained  with  the  proper 
educational  advantages  which  enabled  him 
to  break  through  the  film  of  false  reason- 
ing and  to  grasp  the  key  which  opened 
the  door  into  the  avenue  leading  to  the 
true  solution  of  the  problem.  The  scien- 
tific conflict  was  severe ; but  the  Coper- 
nican  theory  finally  prevailed,  and  is  now 
universally  believed,  notwithstanding  the 
specious  argument  of  the  philosophers  of 
that  day  based  on  this  always  unsafe  crite- 
rion of  venerated  authority. 

So,  I predict,  will  the  corpuscular  hy- 
pothesis of  sound  finally  triumph  over  the 
venerable  wave-theory,  without  a tithe  of 
the  conflict  or  enduring  doubt  which  char- 
acterized the  decadence  and  final  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Ptolemaic  system;  and  with 
no  decree,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  to  check 
the  outward  strides  of  the  one  or  bolster 
up  the  waning  fortunes  of  the  other.  In 
this  view  I confidently  look  forward  to  the 
near  future,  when  it  will  be  as  rare  a cir- 
cumstance for  a physicist  to  express  a be- 
lief in  atmospheric  waves  as  the  true  mode 
of  sound-propagation,  as  it  is  now  to  hear 
any  man  pretending  to  a scientific  educa- 
tion suggest  the  possibility  of  the  earth 
being  stationary  and  flat  instead  of  being 
a revolving  globe ! 

For  an  astronomer  at  this  day  to  be 
obliged  to  reason  with  a pretended  philos- 
opher who  could  really  assume,  on  account 
of  mere  appearances,  that  the  earth  neces- 
sarily stands  still,  and  that  the  millions  of 
celestial  bodies  actually  revolve  about  it 
every  twenty-four  hours ; and  to  be  com- 
pelled to  seriously  go  into  the  details  of 
argument  with  such  a mind,  after  knowing 
what  an  astronomical  student  must  neces- 
sarily know  about  the  motions  of  the 


heavenly  bodies  and  the  infinite  impossi- 
bility of  such  a supposition  being  true; — • 
and  feeling,  as  he  would  be  forced  to  feel, 
that  a man  pretending  to  the  least  degree 
of  scientific  education  must  be  absolutely 
without  excuse  for  holding  to  so  stupid  an 
idea  in  this  age  of  general  intelligence,  re- 
quires about  the  same  degree  of  patient 
equanimity  of  temper,  and  shows  a parallel 
example  of  the  mingled  commiseration  and 
astonishment  which  the  writer  of  this  re- 
view is  compelled  to  cultivate  and  to  feel 
while  patiently  pointing  out  the  self-evident 
fallacies  and  inconsistencies  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  and  the  pitiable  involve- 
ment of  these  eminent  scientific  investiga- 
tors who  are  so  misguided  and  self-deceived 
as  to  advocate  it. 

Should  any  physicist  a hundred  years 
hence  happen  to  be  so  illy  informed  and 
so  far  behind  the  age  as  to  believe  in  and 
advocate  the  preposterous  positions  in- 
volved in  the  current  wave-theory  of  sound, 
the  educated  scientist  of  that  epoch  in 
attempting  to  set  him  right  will  then  feel 
about  the  same  indefinable  sensation  of 
pity  mingled  with  disgust  that  the  astron- 
omer of  to-day  feels  when  hearing  some 
scientific  lunatic  urge,  as  is  sometimes  the 
case,  that  the  earth  can  not  revolve  on  its 
axis,  because,  if  it  did  so,  it  would  overturn 
the  water-bucket;  or  that  the  writer  of  this 
review  is  compelled  to  feel  while  trying  to 
convince  Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz, 
and  Mayer  that  a locust  can  not,  by  mov- 
ing its  legs,  throw  four  cubic  miles  of  air 
into  “condensations  and  rarefactions, ’’and 
thus  exert  a mechanical  pressure  of  thou- 
sands of  millions  of  tons! 

The  lesson  taught  us  by  the  humiliating 
fact  of  the  long-enduring  sway  of  the  Pto- 
lemaic system  of  astronomy,  while  all  the 
time  absurdly  false,  should  warn  us  against 
taking  anything  in  science  on  trust,  or  be- 
lieving it  to  be  true  just  because  it  is  sane- 


174 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


tified  by  the  indorsement  of  a long  and 
immortal  line  of  scientific  names, — espe- 
cially while  anything  about  it  has  not  been 
subjected  to  the  most  scrutinizing  scientific 
research.  The  creed  to  which  I have 
sworn  fidelity,  and  to  which  I have  affixed 
my  hand  and  signet,  though  a negative 
creed,  is  nevertheless  my  Bible  in  all  scien- 
tific matters,  namely,  not  to  accept  any- 
thing as  philosophical  or  scientific  truth, 
or  to  allow  it  the  weight  of  a feather  in 
my  convictions,  because  it  has  been  be- 
lieved in  or  advocated  by  any  man  or  set 
of  men,  however  renowned  their  names 
may  be. 

A pet  bear,  it  is  said,  can  be  so  long 
accustomed  to  being  chained  to  a stake 
that  it  will  continue  on  to  circle  in  the 
same  beaten  path  without  thinking  of  ven- 
turing beyond  the  limits  of  its  wont,  even 
for  days  after  its  chain  has  been  removed. 
There  have  been  scientific  pet  bears  in  all 
ages,  and  I fear  the  race  has  not  )ret  be- 
come extinct. 

An  illustration  of  the  force  of  habit 
and  the  influence  of  traditional  authority 
handed  down  from  predecessors  by  which 
we  are  many  times  led  to  accept  the  great- 
est of  absurdities  without  calling  them  in 
question,  is  given  in  a story  told  of  a cer- 
tain commandant  of  an  old  fortification 
somewhere  I think  in  Germany,  who,  on 
assuming  command  of  the  station,  found 
that  every  morning  and  evening,  as  regu- 
larly as  the  sun  rose  and  set,  a soldier  was 
stationed  as  guard,  by  the  subordinate 
officer,  over  a certain  piece  of  ground 
near  the  mote.  The  commandant,  though 
struck  with  the  circumstance,  supposed  it 
to  be  all  right,  and  therefore  did  not  re- 
quire an  explanation,  but  proceeded  to 
attend  to  his  daily  routine  of  duties.  At 
length,  continuing  to  observe  day  after 
day  this  singular  and  apparently  uncalled- 
for  changing  of  guard,  he  concluded  to 


inquire  the  cause  of  so  strange  a custom. 
But  on  questioning  his  staff-officers  they 
were  unable  to  give  him  any  information 
on  the  subject.  He  then  called  up  an  old 
sergeant  who  had  been  stationed  at  the 
fort  for  many  years,  but  his  inquiries  met 
with  the  same  result.  The  sergeant  in- 
formed his  superior  that  when  he  came 
there  it  was  customary  to  place  a guard 
over  that  piece  of  ground  every  morning 
and  evening,  and  that  the  sergeant  who 
had  preceded  him  for  years  told  him,  on 
being  transferred,  that  it  had  been  the 
custom  since  his  first  entrance  into  the 
service. 

At  last  the  commandant  began  an  ex- 
amination of  the  records  kept  by  his  pre- 
decessors, when,  finally,  to  his  astonish- 
ment, he  ascertained  that  forty  years  pre- 
viously a certain  officer  in  charge  of  this 
fort  had  brought  his  family  to  reside  with 
him  during  the  summer, — that,  for  their 
comfort  and  convenience  he  had  planted 
this  patch  of  ground  with  cabbages,  and 
that  some  neighboring  casus  being  in  the 
habit  of  breaking  into  his  garden  through 
the  frail  fence,  he  had  deemed  it  expe- 
dient to  station  a guard  to  keep  them 
away ! But  notwithstanding  the  neigh- 
boring farm-house,  and  with  it  the  cows, 
had  long  since  disappeared,  and  although 
no  cabbages  or  other  vegetables  had  been 
grown  upon  this  spot  of  ground  for  forty 
years, yet  the  succeeding  officers  in  charge, 
year  after  year,  without  inquiring  into  the 
reason  why,  but  faithful  to  the  traditions 
of  their  predecessors,  and  alone  from  the 
force  of  habit  and  out  of  respect  to  au- 
thority, had  continued  the  practice  of 
mounting  guard  over  this  vacant  cabbage- 
patch  because  it  was  customary  to  do  so! 

In  about  the  same  manner,  and  for  rea- 
sons not  a whit  better,  Newton  Laplace, 
Helmholtz,  Tyndall,  and  Mayer  have  con- 
tinued year  after  year  and  generation  after 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


175 


generation  to  place  the  wave-theory  on 
duty  just  because  the  custom  was  inaugu- 
rated by  Pythagoras  2,500  years  ago,  and 
wave-motion  made  to  stand  guard  over 
one  of  his  superficial  observations, — while 
modern  physicists,  with  their  immeasurable 
scientific  advantages,  could  have  easily 
seen,  had  they  exercised  their  reason  and 
examined  the  records  of  Nature,  that  the 
cows  and  cabbages  of  that  ancient  philos- 
opher, if  they  ever  existed,  have  long  ago 
disappeared,  leaving  no  use  whatever  for 
the  wave-theory  of  sound  to  be  placed  on 
guard. 

But  even  yet  I have  not  extracted  my 
strongest  and  most  conclusive  argument 
out  of  that  valuable  locust,  which  has  been 
stridulating  so  unpleasantly  in  the  ears  of 
physicists,  and  playing  such  tantalizing 
havoc  with  the  wave-theory  during  so  many 
pages  of  this  chapter.  I now  have  another 
service  for  it  to  perform, which  will  so  com- 
pletely overthrow  the  assumption  of  atmos- 
pheric sound-waves  as  apparently  to  end 
the  controversy  on  the  subject,  and  in  such 
a way  as  would  even  seem  not  to  admit 
the  intervention  of  a quibble  to  save  the 
hypothesis  from  destruction.  I make  this 
somewhat  confident  prefatory  remark  at 
introducing  this  argument  in  order  to  pre- 
pare the  reader  for  what  may  be  safely 
termed  demonstrative  evidence  against  the 
wave-theory,  even  if  any  ambiguity  may 
have  been  imagined  as  attaching  to  pre- 
vious arguments.  I am  willing,  so  far  as 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  wave-hypothesis 
is  concerned,  to  entirely  ignore  the  pre- 
ceding considerations,  as  if  they  had  no 
existence,  and  let  the  theory  stand  or  fall 
on  the  merits  of  the  single  argument  now 
to  be  presented,  to  which  I especially  in- 
vite the  attention  of  the  three  eminent  au- 
thorities whose  writings  I have  the  honor 
of  reviewing. 

There  is  not  a physicist,  ancient  or 


modern,  who  has  written  on  sound,  but 
teaches  in  unequivocal  language  that  the 
tympanic  membrane  is  actually  shaken  or 
caused  to  vibrate  by  sonorous  pulses 
through  the  dashing  of  air-waves  against 
it,  driven  off  from  the  sonorific  body;  and 
that  this  vibration  of  the  “drum-skin  of 
the  ear,”  as  Professor  Helmholtz  terms  it, 
swinging  in  synchronism  with  these  beat- 
ing waves,  is  the  way  we  hear  sound,  and 
the  only  means  by  which  sonorous  impres- 
sions ate  conveyed  to  the  auditory  nerve, 
and  through  it  carried  to  the  brain,  and 
there  translated  into  the  sensations  of 
tone. 

To  the  well-informed  student  of  the 
physical  sciences  I would  need  to  present 
no  proof  of  a statement  so  universally 
verified  by  the  writings  of  authorities  treat- 
ing on  this  subject;  but  I am  writing  for 
the  unscientific  masses  as  well,  and  shall 
therefore  present  a few  concise  extracts 
from  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz, 
that  no  reader  shall  say  I assume  the  ques- 
tion to  be  proved.  Professor  Tyndall  re- 
marks:— 

“Thus  is  sound  conveyed  from  particle  to  par- 
ticle through  the  air.  The  particles  which  fill  the 
cavity  of  the  ear  are  finally  driven  against  the  tym- 
panic membrane , which  is  stretched  across  the  pas- 
sage leading  to  the  brain.  This  membrane,  which 
closes  the  drum  of  the  ear,  fir  thrown  into  vibration , 
its  motion  is  transmitted  to  the  ends  of  the  auditory 
nerve , and  afterwards  along  the  nerve  to  the  brain, 
where  the  vibrations  are  translated  into  sound." 

“ Thus,  also,  we  send  out  sound  through  the  air, 
and  shake  the  drum  of  the  distant  ear." — Lectures 
on  Sound , pp.  4,  5. 

This  language  can  not  be  misunderstood. 
There  is  nothing  figurative,  poetical,  or 
ambiguous  about  it.  He  means  by  “vibra- 
tions” the  actual  displacement  of  the  bend- 
ing portion  of  this  membrane,  or  its  literal 
oscillation , inward  and  outward , as  each 
successive  air-wave  strikes  it.  As  a proof 
that  such  is  his  meaning,  he  repeats  this 


176 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


fundamental  doctrine  of  tympanic  vibra- 
tion in  so  many  ways  that  we  are  left  with- 
out any  doubt  on  the  subject.  Take  the 
following: — 

“Imagine  the  first  of  a series  of  pulses  which 
follow  each  other  at  regular  intervals,  impinging 
upon  the  tympanic  membrane.  It  is  shaken  by  the 
shock;  and  a body  once  shaken  can  not  come  in- 
stantaneously to  rest.” — “Every  wave  generated 
by  such  vibrations  bends  the  tympanic  membrane 
once  in  and  once  out." — lectures  on  Sound, pp.49,69. 

This,  also,  is  concise  and  to  the  point. 
A sound,  to  reach  the  brain  at  all,  and 
there  be  translated  into  its  proper  sensa- 
tion, must  do  so  by  first  acting  on  this 
drum-skin  of  the  ear, — bending  it  “once 
in  and  once  out”  for  “every  wave  gener- 
ated.” It  matters  not  how  faint  this  sound 
may  be  or  at  what  distance  away  from  its 
source  it  is  heard;  we  only  hear  it  by  the 
oscillations  of  this  membrane,  if  the  wave- 
theory  be  true,  for  this  great  authority  as- 
sures us  that  “we  send  out  sound  through 
the  air , and  shake  the  drum  of  the  distant 
car.” 

Professor  Helmholtz,  who,  as  I have  al- 
ready hinted,  stands  first  among  all  the 
authorities  on  sound,  fully  corroborates 
this  view.  In  fact,  he  is  the  main  source 
of  authority  from  which  Professor  Tyndall 
and  all  minor  writers  on  sound  draw  most 
of  their  inspirations.  I will  quote  a sen- 
tence or  two  from  him  to  show  that  his 
views  correspond  in  every  respect  with 
those  of  Professor  Tyndall: — 

“A  periodically  oscillating  sonorous  body  pro- 
duces a similar  periodical  motion , first  in  the  mass 
of  air  and  then  in  the  drum  of  our  car.  and  the  pe- 
riod of  these  vibrations  must  be  the  same  as  that  of 
the  vibration  in  the  sounding  body.” — “We  have 
already  explained  that  the  mass  of  air  which  sets 
the  tympanic  membrane  of  the  ear  in  motion,”  &c. 
— Sensations  of  Tone,  pp.  16,  45. 

I could  quote  hundreds  of  passages  to 
the  same  effect  from  various  authorities, 
including  Professor  Mayer,  had  I space  to 
spare  or  were  they  necessary.  I simply 


assert,  as  all  scientists  well  know,  that  this 
is  not  only  the  uniform  teaching  of  the 
current  sound-theory,  but  it  is  the  very 
foundation  on  which  the  wave-hypothesis 
rests,  since  it  is  perfectly  manifest  if  the 
tympanic  membrane  does  not  vibrate  in 
periodicity  to  aerial  undulations  that  at- 
mospheric sound-waves  are  wholly  useless 
as  the  mode  of  sound-propagation. 

This  fundamental  doctrine,  therefore, 
of  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  tympanic 
membrane  in  response  to  sound,  however 
feeble  or  at  whatever  distance  from  its 
source  it  may  be  heard,  is  vital  to  the 
wave-theory,  and  no  physicist  will  hesitate 
a moment  to  admit  that  the  two  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  If,  therefore,  I shall 
be  able  in  this  argument  to  demonstrate 
that  the  tympanic  membrane  does  not  and 
can  not  vibrate  at  all  in  response  to  sound, 
and  that  it  is  not  so  intended  to  vibrate  in 
the  slighest  degree,  it  is  clear  that  the 
wave-theory  falls  to  the  ground.  I first 
propose  to  demonstrate  this  by  the  stimu- 
lation of  the  locust. 

First  of  all,  this  “drum-skin  of  the  ear,” 
it  must  be  distinctly  understood,  is  a phys- 
ical, ponderable  body,  stretched  across 
and  closing  the  auricular  passage,  and 
hence  must  have  a certain  definite  amount 
of  weight  or  inertia , and  must  therefore 
necessarily  require  a definite  and  calcu- 
lable amount  of  mechanical  force  to  dis- 
place it,  even  if  freely  suspended  in  the 
air,  to  say  nothing  of  the  extra  force 
which  would  be  required  to  bend  it  “once 
in  and  once  out”  at  every  wave,  and  thus 
overcome  its  tensive  resistance  in  addition 
to  its  weight.  I shall  at  present  only  con- 
sider the  question  of  inertia;  and  I care 
not  how  trifling  that  may  be  in  the  case 
of  a single  “drum-skin,”  it  answers  my 
purpose  just  as  well,  as  the  reader  will 
soon  see. 

A single  tympanic  membrane  can  easily 


ClIAl’.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


177 


be  weighed  on  any  druggist’s  scales,  and 
the  weight  accurately  ascertained  and  re- 
corded. Take  that  portion  of  the  mem- 
brane free  to  bend  in  and  out  by  alternate 
external  and  internal  pressure,  and  it  is 
found  to  be  equal  to  about  a quarter  of  an 
inch  square  in  superficial  area,  and  aver- 
aging about  a sixty-fourth  of  an  inch  thick. 
In  order  to  meet  this  case  with  unques- 
tioned facts  and  figures,  I have  taken  the 
trouble  to  secure  a perfect  specimen  of 
this  membrane,  though  somewhat  less  in 
weight  than  in  a living  subject,  and  I find 
its  actual  weight  to  be  a fraction  over 
half  a grain, — making,  in  round  numbers, 
16,000  of  such  drum-skins  to  the  pound 
avoirdupois.  Here,  then,  is  a mathematical 
basis  for  arriving  at  definite  mechanical 
results  in  regard  to  the  physical  strength 
of  this  locust,  which  can  not  be  gainsaid 
or  doubted. 

In  the  next  place,  I have  easily  ascer- 
tained, as  the  reader  can  also  do,  that  a 
single  specimen  of  this  “drum-skin”  can 
be  stretched  within  the  equivalent  space 
occupied  by  a cubic  quarter-inch  block, 
leaving  an  abundance  of  room  on  either 
side  for  it  to  vibrate  to  and  fro  by  the 
action  of  sound,  if  it  does  ever  so  vibrate. 
We  have,  then,  only  to  suppose  one  tym- 
panic membrane  accurately  and  sensitively 
located  in  the  space  of  each  cubic  quarter- 
inch  throughout  the  four  cubic  miles  filled 
by  the  sound  of  the  locust,  and  as  certain 
as  there  is  any  truth  in  the  wave-theory  of 
sound, all  these  membranes  must  be  thrown 
into  vibratory  motion,  if  stretched  with  the 
same  tension  as  they  are  in  human  ears, 
because  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  an  ear, 
if  present  at  any  quarter-inch  throughout 
this  mass  of  air,  would  hear  the  sound  of 
the  stridulation,  which,  according  to  this 
theory,  could  only  occur  by  the  shaking  of 
this  “drum-skin”! 

Now,  by  a simple  calculation, which  any 


schoolboy  can  verify,  I find  that  there  is 
room  enough  in  this  area,  in  round  num- 
bers, for  65,000,000,000,000,000  of  these 
tympanic  membranes  thus  tensioned, 
which,  divided  by  16,000,  the  number  con- 
tained in  a pound,  gives  us  a ponderable 
mass  of  4,000,000,000,000  pounds,  or  two 
thousand  million  tons  of  tympanic  mem- 
branes which  this  trifling  insect,  according 
to  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  is  capable  of 
throwing  into  rapid  vibratory  motion  by 
the  mechanical  operation  of  moving  its 
legs!  Is  such  a result  reasonable  or  pos- 
sible? Is  it  not  rather  an  infinite  impos- 
sibility, and  the  theory  which  teaches  it 
an  unmitigated  imposition  upon  the  intel- 
ligence of  mankind? 

It  must  be  remembered,  while  contem- 
plating this  unavoidable  consequence  of 
wave-motion,  that  the  locust  is  not  only 
made  capable  of  moving  these  2,000,000,000 
tons  of  physical  matter  by  throwing  the 
four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  into  undu- 
lations, but  this  entire  mass  of  supposed 
drum-skins  has  to  be  moved  from  a state 
of  rest  by  overcoming  or  annihilating  its 
vis  inertia,  carried  a certain  distance, 
brought  to  rest,  and  again  started,  and  so 
on  at  the  rate  of  440  such  stops  and  starts 
a second,  this  being  the  number  of  air- 
waves sent  off  by  the  insect,  according  to 
its  pitch  of  tone,  it  being  the  middle  A of 
the  piano  or  that  of  the  second  string  of 
the  violin.  To  say  that  a pretended  scien- 
tific theory  which  teaches  the  possibility 
of  such  a mechanical  result  is  an  infinite 
fallacy,  is  to  employ  tame  language  in 
regard  to  it. 

There  can  be  no  mistake  about  the  fore- 
going calculation,  and  hence  no  way  for 
physicists  to  escape  the  annihilating  con- 
sequences to  their  favorite  theory  of  sound- 
waves, logically  deduced  from  it.  They 
can  not  say  that  the  sound  of  this  species 
of  locust  is  not  heard  throughout  this  area. 


1 78 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


as  this  is  a patent  fact  admitted  by  the 
greatest  living  ' naturalists,  including  Mr. 
Darwin.  They  can  not  deny  their  own 
uniform  teaching  that  the  only  way  sound 
is  heard  at  all  is  by  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane being  bent  “once  in  and  once  out” 
by  each  separate  sound-wave.  They  can 
not  call  in  question  the  self-evident  fact 
that  if  an  ear  were  to  be  stationed  at 
any  cubic  inch  or  quarter-inch  of  space 
throughout  this  area  it  would  distinctly 
hear  this  sound.  Hence,  the  calculation 
I have  made  is  based  on  correct  mathe- 
matical and  mechanical  principles;  and, 
unless  Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz,  and 
Mayer  are  prepared  to  accept  the  result, 
and  believe  that  an  insect  by  the  simple 
movement  of  its  legs  in  rasping  the  nervures 
of  its  wings  is  capable  of  shaking  two  thou- 
sand million  tons  of  physical  matter , as  heavy 
and  as  difficult  to  shake  as  that  much  lead, 
they  must  of  necessity  abide  the  only  logical 
consequence, and  abandon  the  wave-theory 
as  an  unspeakable  scientific  fallacy! 

This  calculation,  involving  the  idea  of 
shaking  two  thousand  million  tons  by  means 
of  the  physical  strength  of  an  insect  in- 
capable of  stirring  a single  ounce  weight 
is  no  doubt  entirely  beyond  the  mathe- 
matical comprehension  of  the  reader.  In 
fact,  it  is  difficult  to  grasp  the  idea,  so  as 
to  realize  it  in  its  true  signification, of  what 
a single  million  amounts  to.  To  simplify 
the  problem,  I will  try  to  bring  the  matter 
temporarily  within  human  conception,  and 
at  the  same  time  do  away  with  the  neces- 
sity of  imagining  tympanic  membranes 
stationed  in  what  may  be  supposed  impos- 
sible positions,  such  as  at  every  quarter- 
inch,  so  that  even  this  apparent  exaggera- 
tion shall  not  furnish  ground  for  a quibble, 
by  which  to  weaken  the  overwhelming 
nature  of  the  argument. 

In  taking  a milder  view  of  the  mathe- 
matical and  mechanical  consequences  of 


the  problem,  we  will  first  suppose  that, 
according  to  the  wave-theory,  when  one 
man  hears  the  sound  of  this  stridulation 
his  two  tympanic  membranes,  weighing 
but  one  grain , are  actually  shaken.  This 
quantity  is  so  trifling  that  these  investiga- 
tors, never  stopping  to  calculate  where  it 
leads,  naturally  feel  perfectly  at  ease  in 
assuming  it,  or  taking  it  for  granted.  I 
would  really  like  to  have  the  opportunity 
of  asking  Professor  Tyndall,  in  an  innocent 
kind  of  a way,  without  him  suspecting 
what  I was  driving  at,  how  much  weight 
he  supposes  a common  locust  capable  of 
shaking,  and  keeping  it  up  for  one  minute, 
at  the  rate  of  440  oscillations  a second. 
I think  he  would  not  venture  to  suggest 
over  one  ounce,  if  that  much,  as  this  would 
be  more  than  fifty  times  its  own  weight. 
Suppose  he  even  put  it  at  an  ounce.  Then 
how  easy  it  would  be  to  explode  the  wave- 
theory  by  showing  him  that  if  8,000  men 
should  stand  together  around  this  locust 
and  listen  to  its  stridulation,  their  16,000 
tympanic  membranes,  actually  weighing 
one  pound  avoirdupois,  must  necessarily 
be  bent  “once  in  and  once  out”  440  times 
a second,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  wave- 
hypothesis!  How  would  it  be  possible  for 
this  great  physicist  to  reply? 

Then,  as  these  8,000  men  can  conve- 
niently stand  on  half  an  acre  of  ground, 
and  as  there  are  over  5,000  half-acres 
within  the  four  square  miles  permeated 
by  the  sound  of  this  insect,  it  becomes 
evident  to  a schoolboy  that  men  enough 
might  stand  within  the  limits  of  this  area, 
and  all  listen  to  the  locust  at  the  same 
time,  to  have  their  five  thousand  pounds  of 
tympanic  membranes  oscillated  or  bent 
“once  in  and  once  out”  440  times  a 
second  while  the  stridulation  continued! 
Thus,  taking  the  mildest  and  most  unex- 
ceptionable view  possible,  this  insect,  which 
no  one  could  believe  capable  of  stirring  a 


Ciiap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


1 79 


single  ounce,  is  actually  demonstrated,  ac- 
cording to  this  theory,  to  shake  a weight 
of  5,000  pounds  continuously  for  a minute ! 
The  unanswerable  character  of  the  argu- 
ment is  thus  brought  within  the  compre- 
hension of  all,  and  shown  to  be  beyond  the 
power  of  any  believer  in  the  wave-hypoth- 
esis to  controvert. 

What  now  say  these  learned  physicists? 
To  admit  that  this  insect  could  not  shake 
5,000  pounds  of  tympanic  membranes,  or 
the  fifty  thousandth  part  as  much,  at  one 
time,  as  they  would  be  honestly  obliged 
to  say,  would  be  to  abandon  the  wave- 
theory.  To  say,  in  defiance  of  reason,  that 
such  a result  is  possible,  and  that  a mere 
insect  could  accomplish  a mechanical  effect 
evidently  beyond  the  physical  strength  of 
a powerful  horse,  would  be  to  excite  the 
contempt  of  the  whole  educated  world. 

I have  said  that  this  argument,  based 
on  the  movement  of  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane as  the  effect  of  sound,  is  the  most 
conclusive  reason  against  the  wave-theory 
to  be  drawn  from  the  stridulation  of  this 
locust,  because  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear 
is  not  an  intangibility,  or  a something 
which  can  not  be  seen,  weighed,  and  han- 
dled, but  is  a palpable,  ponderable  body, 
having  a certain  actual,  determinate 
weight,  and  requiring  a definite  and  deter- 
minate amount  of  vis  viva , or  mechanical 
force,  to  put  it  into  motion,  as  literally 
and  truly  as  if  each  tympanum  were  a 
mass  of  rock  or  iron.  Whatever  vague 
scientific  delusion,  therefore,  we  may  have 
indulged  as  regards  sound  causing  some 
sort  of  an  indefinable  tremor  of  the  atmos- 
phere, or  system  of  aerial  undulations,  at 
whatever  distance  heard, — innocently  sup- 
posed to  require  no  appreciable  mechan- 
ical force, — it  is  all  swept  away  by  the 
actual  oscillation  of  this  stubborn  and 
ugly  mass  of  5,000  pounds  of  animal  fiber, 
which  would  balance  the  scale  if  tested 


against  5,000  pounds  of  granite  rock! 
And  just  as  certain  as  a locust  has  not  the 
physical  power  to  shake  that  quantity  of 
granite  by  kicking  against  it  or  rasping  its 
legs  across  it  at  the  rate  of  440  vibrations  a 
second,  just  so  certain  is  the  whole  wave- 
theory  a shallow  and  transparent  scientific 
blunder. 

Although  I have  modified  this  argument 
and  the  original  calculation,  temporarily, 
by  limiting  the  weight  of  tympanic  mem- 
branes to  the  number  of  men  who  can  ac- 
tually stand  together  and  listen  to  the 
stridulation,  making  in  this  way  only  5,000 
pounds  which  this  insect  has  to  shake 
(evidently  fifty  thousand  times  more  than  it 
can  accomplish),  yet  it  is  clearly  manifest 
that  my  first  estimate  was  unmistakably 
the  correct  one;  for, if  one  tympanic  mem- 
brane at  any  single  point  of  the  atmos- 
phere within  the  four  cubic  miles  is  shaken 
by  this  sound,  it  is  manifestly  because  the 
atmosphere  at  that  particular  point  is  so  agi- 
tated mechanically  as  to  cause  the  drum-skin 
to  vibrate,  or  otherwise  it  could  not  shake; 
and  hence  the  same  agitation  must  neces- 
sarily occur  at  every  other  point  of  the 
atmosphere  where  this  tone  is  heard, which 
would  also  equally  shake  a tympanic  mem- 
brane if  it  should  be  there  present!  Thus 
I demonstrate,  beyond  all  controversy,  that 
my  first  calculation  was  correct,  and  that 
this  stridulation  of  an  insect  must  neces- 
sarily exert  a mechanical  force  upon  the 
atmosphere,  by  the  movement  of  its  legs, 
of  two  thousand  million  tons,  if  there  is  the 
slightest  foundation  in  science  or  in  fact 
for  the  wave-theory  of  sound! 

These  are  no  fancy  figures  of  the  ad  cap 
tandum  vulgus  type,  but  the  logical  results 
of  mechanical  and  mathematical  necessity, 
as  much  so  as  are  the  figures  employed  by 
the  astronomer  in  calculating  an  eclipse, 
or  by  the  mechanic  in  estimating  the  weight 
of  a steam-boiler.  I therefore  ask,  is  the 


i8o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


reader  prepared  to  accept  such  an  un- 
avoidable mathematical  and  mechanical 
result  as  reasonable  or  probable’  If  not, 
then  the  wave-theory, which  teaches,  as  its 
most  vital  principle,  that  we  can  only  hear 
sound  by  the  vibration  of  the  tympanic 
membrane,  falls  hopelessly  to  the  ground, 
and  must  henceforth  be  relegated  to  the 
limbo  of  exploded  scientific  speculations. 

The  quotations  I gave  from  these  high- 
est living  authorities  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  argument  (page  175),  in  which 
the  theory  teaches  that  we  hear  sound  by 
the  tympanic  membrane  bending  “once 
in  and  once  out”  as  each  sound-wave 
strikes  it,  and  by  which  such  oscillations 
are  transferred  to  the  auditory  nerve,  and 
conveyed  “afterwards  along  the  nerve  to 
the  bram, where  the  vibrations  are  translated 
into  sound”  can  not  be  explained  away, 
nor  can  their  disastrous  effects  on  the 
wave-hypothesis  be  weakened  in  the  slight- 
est degree;  neither  can  the  result,  mathe- 
matically demonstrated,  by  which  an  in- 
sect is  made  to  exeit  a mechanical  force 
of  2,000,000,000  tons,  be  jostled  or  im- 
pugned by  any  scientific  figuring  in  the 
power  of  physicists,  without  a total  abne- 
gation and  renouncement  of  the  wave- 
theory. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  the  utter  impossi- 
bility of  any  kind  of  a reply  being  made 
to  this  argument  which  will  give  a lease 
of  life  to  the  wave-hypothesis,  one  can 
hardly  help  sympathizing  with  these  au- 
thors who  have  so  ruinously  involved 
themselves  and  their  theory  in  the  self- 
stultifying  citations  I have  made.  Favored 
indeed  may  be  considered  that  physicist 
who  has  not  been  tempted  at  some  evil 
hour  of  his  life  to  write  a book  on  sound, 
and  thus  to  hopelessly  compromise  his 
reputation  for  scientific  sagacity  by  com- 
mitting himself  to  this  unfortunate  and  in- 
excusable blunder  of  tympanic  vibration. 


At  this  point  a single  word  with  my 
scientific  young  friend,  with  whom  I have 
so  often  discussed  these  questions,  who 
admits  that  the  wave-theory,  with  its  con- 
densations, rarefactions,  and  generation 
of  heat  sufficient  to  add  one  sixth  to  the 
velocity  of  sound,  is  an  almost  infinite  fal- 
lacy, but  who  still  believes  it  impossible 
but  that  some  sort  of  motion  of  the  air  must 
take  place  whenever  sound  is  heard! 

Now,  to  settle  that  difficulty  once  for  all, 

I will  say  that  if  there,  is  a motion  of  any 
kind  among  the  particles  of  the  air  as  the 
effect  of  sound,  it  must  be  manifestly  a 
movement  synchronous  or  in  periodicity 
with  the  vibration  of  the  sounding  body 
which  generates  the  tone,  or  otherwise  the 
tone  does  not  cause  it.  No  one  can  avoid 
this  conclusion.  Professor  Plelmholtz 
teaches  this  in  the  plainest  language : — 

“ A periodically  oscillating  sonorous  body  pro- 
duces a similar  periodical  motion , first  in  the  mass 
of  air  and  then  in  the  drum  of  the  ear;  and  the 
period  of  these  vibrations  must  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  vibration  in  the  sounding  body." — Sensations 
of  Tone,  p.  16. 

This  being  so,  it  amounts  to  exactly  the 
same  thing  as  the  wave-theory;  for, as  the 
sound  of  the  locust  could  be  heard  through- 
out every  quarter-inch  of  the  four  cubic 
miles,  if  an  ear  were  present , it  follows  that 
every  particle  of  air  throughout  this  area 
must  keep  up  some  kind  of  a vibratory 
motion,  pendulous  with  the  source  of  the 
sound,  as  long  as  the  stridulation  of  the 
insect  continues;  and  whether  this  tremor 
be  in  the  form  of  a wave,  having  a supposed 
condensation  and  rarefaction,  with  one 
half  of  it  above  and  the  other  half  below 
the  normal  temperature  of  the  air,  or  not, 
it  involves  the  same  mechanical  impossi- 
bility of  actually  displacing  and  overcom- 
ing the  inertia  of  four  cubic  miles  of  air 
440  times  a second,  as  demonstrated  above. 

And,  what  is  worse,  the  separate  mole- 
cules of  the  atmosphere  which  are  dis- 


Chai\  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


1 8 1 


placed  throughout  this  area,  having  no 
normal  pendulous  swing  or  vibrational 
number  of  their  own,  or  any  other  oscil- 
latory motion,  only  as  they  are  forced  from 
their  state  of  rest  by  directly  having  their 
inertia  overcome,  must  evidently  be  moved 
bodily,  if  at  all,  and  brought  to  rest  440 
times  a second,  without  the  slightest  aid 
from  the  periodicity  of  pendulous  momen- 
tum. The  normal  pendulous  swing  of  any 
responding  body  can  only  come  into  play 
when  the  motile  or  exciting  pulses  synchro- 
nize with  such  fixed  and  definite  normal 
oscillation ; or,  in  other  words,  a respond- 
ing body  must  be  suspended  or  tensioned 
to  make  that  determinate  periodic  time, 
which,  as  reason  must  teach  us,  the  air- 
particles  can  not  and  do  not  individually 
possess.  Hence,  their  displacement,  even 
if  it  be  not  wave-motion,  with  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions,”  involves  the  abso- 
lute overcoming  of  the  inertia  of  the  four 
cubic  miles  of  atmosphere  440  times  every 
second  while  the  sound  continues,  without 
any  pendulous  assistance  whatever. 

But  even  if  it  were  supposable  that  the 
elementary  air-particles  might  possess  a 
normal  pendulous  swing  or  vibrational 
number  of  their  own,  it  is  evident  that 
there  could  be  but  one  such  normal  vibra- 
tional rate , in  which  case  they  could  only 
give  pendulous  assistance  to  one  single 
definite  pitch  of  tone,  or  that  pitch  which 
happened  to  be  in  unison  with  their  own 
normal  swing! 

Denying  wave-motion,  therefore,  with 
its  “condensations  and  rarefactions,”  and 
its  acknowledged  impossible  generation 
of  heat  and  elasticity  in  the  air,  while  yet 
insisting  on  some  other  kind  of  vibratory 
motion,  which  involves  the  same  thing  in 
effect,  by  the  shaking  and  displacing  of 
four  cubic  miles  of  atmosphere,  the  inertia 
of  which  has  to  be  overcome  and  restored 
440  times  a second  by  the  stridulation  of 


the  locust,  does  not  seem  to  help  the  diffi- 
culty in  the  least.  My  young  friend,  let 
me  say  to  you,  frankly,  if  you  must  believe 
in  some  sort  of  an  infinitely  absurd  hy- 
pothesis, stick  to  the  venerable  wave- 
theory,  as  you  will  then  have  the  satisfac- 
tion of  knowing  that  you  are  in  company 
with  the  best  scientific  minds  of  all  ages. 

But  I am  not  yet  through  with  this  vital 
feature  of  the  wave-hypothesis,  namely, 
the  shaking  of  the  tympanic  membrane  by 
sound,  as  the  reader  will  discover  before 
this  chapter  is  ended.  I am  prepared  to 
show  that  sound  does  not  and  can  not,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  cause  this  membrane 
to  oscillate  at  all  or  stir  in  the  slightest 
degree,  and  that  it  is  a foundationless  error 
to  suppose  that  Nature  intended  us  to  hear 
sound  by  any  such  an  impossible  synchro- 
nous oscillation  of  this  so-called  drum-skin 
of  the  ear. 

True,  a membrane  not  in  unison  may 
be  forced  into  an  unsympathetic  tremor 
by  the  incidental  air-waves  generated  by 
a sounding  body  in  close  proximity  to  it. 
Even  the  tympanic  membrane  might  be  so 
coerced ; but  this  is  not  the  effect  of  sound, , 
but  of  an  incidental  movement  accompany- 
ing it,  and  can  not  take  place  at  a distance, 
as  in  the  sytnpathetic  action  of  unison  bodies. 
But  physicists,  as  usual,  make  no  distinc- 
tion here.  Professor  Helmholtz,  speaking 
of  the  sympathetic  response  of  the  drum- 
skin  of  the  ear,  says:  “the  period  of  these 
vibrations  must  be  the  same  as  that  of  the 
vibrations  in  the  sounding  body.” 

Now,  it  needs  no  argument  to  prove  that 
if  we  hear  sound  at  all  by  means  of  the 
synchronous  oscillations  of  the  drum-skin, 
as  this  cita'.ion  clearly  asserts,  that  it  would 
be  only  possible  to  hear  tones  of  one  single 
pitch , or  within  a shade  of  that  one  pitch, 
since  a stretched  membrane,  whether  it  be 
a “drum-skin”  or  a drum-head,  can  only 
oscillate  sympathetically,  by  means  of 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


182 


sound-pulses  which  proceed  from  a unison 
or  very  nearly  unison  instrument. 

But  here  comes  the  complete  overthrow 
of  the  theory;  for,  as  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane practically  receives  and  transmits 
to  the  brain,  through  the  auditory  nerve, 
every  conceivable  shade  of  pitch,  from 
30  vibrations  to  5,000  vibrations  in  a sec- 
ond, and  one  as  effectively  as  another,  it 
is  perfectly  clear  that  this  can  not  be  ac- 
complished by  its  synchronous  and  sym- 
pathetic oscillation,  since,  as  shown,  it  is 
not  possible  for  it  to  have  more  than  one 
single  tension,  or  respond  sympathetically 
to  more  than  one  single  determinate  pitch 
of  tone,  or  thereabout. 

This  manifest  impossibility  of  the  re- 
sponsive oscillation  of  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane to  a thousand  different  periodic 
rates  of  air-waves  or  sound-pulses,  when 
no  other  conceivable  membrane  or  musical 
instrument  will  respond  to  more  than  one 
fixed  and  determinate  rate,  must  strike 
every  mind,  competent  to  reason  on  the 
subject  at  all  or  capable  of  drawing  any 
rational  conclusion  from  premises,  as  an 
acoustical  demonstration  that  we  do  not 
and  can  not  hear  sound  by  means  of  the 
sympathetic  oscillations  of  this  membrane, 
as  the  wave-theory  is  unavoidably  com- 
pelled to  maintain.  Is  not  this  clearly  un- 
answerable? 

But  the  impossibility  of  tympanic  vibra- 
tion does  not  even  stop  here.  Its  infinite 
absurdity  will  now  be  made  more  manifest 
than  ever.  Professor  Tyndall  tells  us 
that, — 

“The  same  air  is  competent  to  accept  and  trans- 
mit the  vibrations  of  a thousand  instruments  at  the 
same  time.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  257. 

Manifestly  the  only  way  we  can  know 
that  the  same  air  is  competent  to  “trans- 
mit the  vibrations  of  a thousand  instruments 
at  the  same  time"  is  by  hearing  them  all 
“at  the  same  time”;  and  I presume  Pro- 


fessor Tyndall  has  an  auditory  apparatus 
capable  of  hearing  that  many  all  at  once, 
or  he  would  not  have  made  this  broad  and 
definite  statement.  Reducing  this  “thou- 
sand” somewhat,  I have,  myself,  listened 
to  a large  orchestra,  composed  of  fifty  or 
sixty  instruments,  all  sounding  their  re- 
spective parts  at  one  time,  while  no  two 
of  them  were  giving  out  tones  exactly  of 
the  same  pitch  and  intensity.  According 
to  the  wave-theory,  each  instrument  was 
sending  off  a different  system  of  air-waves, 
each  system  causing  the  same  air-particles 
to  oscillate  at  an  independent  rate  of  vi- 
bration, and  each  driving  the  same  air- 
particles  through  an  independent  and  dif- 
ferent width  of  amplitude,  according  to 
its  loudness.  And  all  these  diverse  rates 
of  wave-motion  and  conflicting  amplitudes 
of  the  same  air-particles  must  take  place, 
remember,  in  the  aural  passage,  not  more 
than  a quarter  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  and 
each  tone  be  produced  by  a separate  sys- 
tem of  waves,  if  the  theory  has  any  foun- 
dation in  fact. 

But  even  this  is  not  the  culmination  of 
the  impossibility.  The  fifty  different  and 
independent  systems  of  air-waves,  acting 
each  with  an  independent  rate  of  wave- 
motion  and  width  of  swing,  transmit  their 
conflicting  impulses  to  the  small  area  of 
this  membrane  at  the  same  time;  and,  in 
order  to  produce  the  impression  of  the 
fifty  different  tones,  this  membrane  must 
at  the  same  instant  necessarily  go  through 
with  fifty  independent  rates  of  vibratory 
motion,  with  fifty  distinct  but  independent 
amplitudes,  involving  the  ridiculous  im- 
possibility of  the  same  drum-skin  moving 
in  at  least  half  as  many  different  direc- 
tions, with  half  as  many  different  velocities, 
and  throughout  half  as  many  different  and 
conflicting  distances,  at  one  and  the  same 
time,  since  it  must  bend  “once  in  and  once 
out"  as  each  wave  strikes  it,  according  to 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


1 8 3 


the  high  authority  of  Professor  Tyndall! 
As  the  intuition  of  a child  must  at  once 
pronounce  this  impracticable,  it  follows 
that  sound  can  not  be  heard  and  is  not 
intended  to  be  heard  at  all  by  the  synchro- 
nous vibration  of  the  tympanic  membrane; 
for  it  is  certain  that  all  of  these  fifty  tones 
make  each  a distinct  individual  impression 
on  this  organ,  since  I found  no  difficulty 
whatever  in  following  any  instrument  I 
chose  to  select,  or  in  hearing  its  notes 
separately  and  distinctly  by  a proper  act 
of  attention. 

Now,  as  this  small  membrane  absolutely 
and  unmistakably  received  and  literally 
transmitted  to  the  brain  all  these  diverse 
tones,  and,  as  the  unpoetical  Tyndall  puts 
it,  one  “thousand”  separate  tones  at  one 
time,  is  the  reader  prepared  to  admit  that 
it  did  so  by  sympathetically  and  mechan- 
ically oscillating  in  that  many  different 
directions,  at  that  many  rates  of  velocity, 
and  throughout  that  many  different  dis- 
tances, at  the  same  time,  and  thus  to  in- 
dorse the  wave-theory?  To  accept  such  a 
physical  impossibility  is  to  wipe  out  all 
known  mechanical  laws  and  scientific  prin- 
ciples of  motion  at  a single  sweep.  Re- 
member the  words  of  Professor  Helmholtz, 
already  quoted: — 

“It  is  evident  that  at  each  point  in  the  mass  of 
air[ It  is  even  more  impossible,  applied  to  the  mass 
of  the  tympanic  membrane  itself,]  at  each  instant 
of  time , there  can  be  only  one  single  degree  of  con- 
densation, and  that  the  particles  of  air  can  be  mov- 
ing with  only  one  single  determinate  kind  of  motion, 
having  only  o>ie  single  determinate  amount  of  ve- 
locity, and  passing  in  only  one  single  determinate 
direction." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  40. 

No  wonder,  then,  in  view  of  the  absolute 
necessities  of  the  wave-theory,  and  the  un- 
avoidable fact,  if  it  be  true,  that  a “thou- 
sand” separate  systems  of  air-waves  con- 
gregate in  the  aural  passage  at  the  same 
moment,  each  with  an  independent  rate 
of  vibration  and  different  degree  of  ampli- 


tude, that  Professor  Tyndall  should  break 
out  as  he  does: — 

“ When  we  try  to  visualize  the  motions  of  that 
air — to  present  to  the  eye  of  the  mind  the  battling 
of  the  pulses  direct  and  reverberated^//^  imagina- 
tion retires  baffled  at  the  attempt.” — Lectures  on 
Sound,  p.  257. 

But  I shall  take  occasion  to  revert  to 
this  argument  again,  before  the  close  of 
the  chapter. 

Let  us  now  turn  for  a moment  and  take 
a look  at  the  natural  and  unavoidable 
effect  of  the  detailed  carrying  out  of  an 
erroneous  theory, namely, self-contradiction. 
Although  Professor  Helmholtz  is  univer- 
sally regarded  as  one  of  the  most  profound 
and  careful  thinkers  on  whatever  branch 
of  physical  science  he  touches,  and  one 
the  most  likely  to  make  this  theory  of  at- 
mospheric sound-waves  hang  together  if 
there  is  any  intrinsic  coherence  in  it;  and 
although,  as  seen  by  recent  quotations,  he 
teaches, with  Professor  Tyndall,  and  in  the 
most  unmistakable  terms,  that  sound  can 
only  be  heard  by  the  vibratory  motion  of 
the  tympanic  membrane  caused  by  the 
synchronous  dashing  of  air-waves  against 
it  from  a sounding  body,  it  is  nevertheless 
a fact  as  gratifying  as  it  is  natural  that  at 
certain  lucid  moments  he  intuitively  con- 
tradicts himself,  and  thus  utterly  over- 
throws the  impossible  hypothesis  of  tym- 
panic vibration  as  well  as  that  of  wave- 
motion.  This  happens,  however,  when  he 
is  casually  directing  his  attention  to  another 
phase  of  the  sound-question,  namely,  the 
office  filled  by  Corti’s  arches,  as  they  are 
called,  and  the  elastic  microscopic  appen- 
dages of  the  auditory  nerve  ramifying  the 
labyrinth.  He  then  apparently  forgets 
this  theoretical  disturbing  power  of  a lo- 
cust’s feet, capable  of  throwing  foursquare 
miles  of  atmosphere  into  “condensations 
and  rarefactions”  with  a mechanical  force 
sufficient  to  “shake”  at  one  time  two  thou - 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


184 


sand  million  tons  of  drum- skins,  and  sensibly 
gives  the  following  death-blow  to  the  the- 
ory he  has  worked  so  long  and  so  earnestly 
to  establish.  Mark  his  words: — 

“ In  this  transference  of  the  vibrations  of  the  air 
into  the  labyrinth,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  though 
the  particles  of  the  air  themselves  have  a compara- 
tively large  amplitude  of  vibration,  yet  their  density 
is  so  small  that  they  have  no  very  great  moment  of 
inertia,  and  consequently  when  their  motion  is  im- 
peded by  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear  they  are  not  ca- 
pable of  presenting  much  resistance  to  such  an  im- 
pediment. or  of  exerting  any  sensible  pressure  against 
it." — Sensations  of  Tone.  p.  199. 

How,  then,  in  the  name  of  science  and 
common  sense,  is  the  stridulation  of  an 
insect  to  “shake”  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear 
and  cause  it  to  oscillate,  when  its  sound- 
waves are  not  capable  of  “exerting  any 
sensible  pressure  against  it  ’?  And  if  it  can 
exert  no  “sensible  pressure”  against  one 
drum-skin,  then  will  this  lucid  and  au- 
thoritative writer  on  physical  philosophy 
try  to  inform  the  unscientific  reader  how 
a locust  can  so  drive  off  the  air-waves  by 
simply  moving  its  feet  as  to  set  into  motion 
2,000,000,000  tons  of  such  drum-skins  at 
one  time,  bending  each  membrane  1,1  once  in 
and  once  out"  440  times  a second,  yet  at 
the  same  time  without  “exerting  any  sen- 
sible pressure  against  it”?  A more  pitiable 
and  hopelessly  suicidal  self-stultification 
does  not  occur  in  the  writings  of  any  phi- 
losopher, ancient  or  modern.  As  a stand- 
off, therefore,  to  the  universal  teaching  of 
physicists  that  the  tympanic  membrane 
vibrates  in  response  to  sound,  as  the  means 
by  which  the  sensations  of  tone  are  trans- 
ferred to  the  auditory  nerve  and  thence 
conducted  to  the  brain,  and  as  a final 
and  unanswerable  overthrow  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  I only  need  to  quote  these 
memorable  words  of  this  greatest  living 
acoustician  and  sound  expert : — 

"In  this  transference  of  the  vibrations  of  the  air 
into  the  labyrinth.  . . . When  their  motion  is  impeded 


by  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear  they  are  not  capable  of 
presenting  much  resistance  to  such  an  impediment 
J3F'  or  of  exerting  any  sensible  pressure  against  it." 

Had  Professor  Helmholtz  been  a con- 
vert to  the  corpuscular  hypothesis  of  sound, 
and  had  he  been  attempting  authoritatively 
to  annihilate  the  wave-theory  in  a single 
sentence,  and  thus  undo  all  he  has  ever 
done  or  said  in  favor  of  it,  he  could  not 
have  used  language  more  directly  to  the 
point  than  the  words  recorded  in  the  above 
citation. 

Notwithstanding  this  authoritative  as- 
surance that  air-waves  driven  into  the 
auricular  passage  by  means  of  sonorous 
vibrations  may  strike  against  the  “drum- 
skin  of  the  ear”  without  making  any  “sen- 
sible” impression  upon  it,  yet  by  some 
kind  of  scientific  hocus-pocus  this  author 
manages  to  effect  what  he  calls  a “trans- 
ference ” of  these  aerial  “vibrations” 
through  this  tympanic  membrane  “into 
the  labyrinth,”  thence  to  the  auditory 
nerve,  and  through  its  multitudinous  ap- 
pendages finally  to  the  brain,  where  the 
same  “vibrations”  which  are  stopped  by 
this  “impediment”  of  the  “drum-skin  of 
the  ear” — exerting  no  “sensible  pressure 
against  it” — are  translated  into  sound! 

Can  anybody  help  Professor  Helmholtz? 
If  not,  will  somebody  try  to  tell  the  unsci- 
entific reader  what  he  is  driving  at?  Why 
is  it  that  he  so  persistently  labors  through 
forty  or  fifty  pages  of  his  book  trying  to 
devise  some  means  of  effecting  a “trans- 
ference” of  these  supposed  aerial  undula- 
tions through  this  “drum-skin  of  the  ear” 
to  the  auditory  nerve,  when  there  is  not 
the  least  use  in  the  world  for  any  such 
complicated  operation,  or  even  for  any 
vibratory  motion  of  the  air  or  its  “trans- 
ference” through  the  drum-skin,  as  he 
might  easily  know  if  he  would  exercise 
his  great  faculties  for  one  minute  in  the 
right  direction,  instead  of  working  with 


Chai*.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


l85 


might  and  main  to  ignore  the  simplest 
scientific  truths  in  order  to  work  out  this 
impossible  problem  of  wave-motion,  and 
make  it  appear  consistent?  I deny  em- 
phatically that  this  physicist,  if  he  were 
definitely  asked,  could  give  the  slightest 
plausible  reason  for  such  “transference,” 
or  show  any  necessity  for  this  hypothetic 
vibratory  motion  being  carried  to  the  au- 
ditory nerve  in  order  to  convey  to  the 
brain  the  appropriate  sensations  of  tone. 

We  all  know,  and  Professor  Helmholtz 
evidently  knows,  that  the  infinitesimal  and 
practically  imponderable  atoms  of  odor 
actually  come  into  contact  with  the  sensi- 
tive membrane  of  the  nostril,  that  their 
impression  is  then  transferred  through  it 
to  the  olfactory  nerve,  and  thence  con- 
veyed along  this  nerve  to  the  brain,  where 
it  is  translated  into  the  sensation  of  smell, 
independently  of  any  oscillation  of  the 
nose  or  its  membranes,  without  the  assist- 
ance of  any  kind  of  wave-motion  either  of 
the  air  within  the  nostril  or  outside  of  it, 
and  without  the  “transference”  of  any 
“vibrations”  whatever  to  this  nerve!  If 
these  corpuscles  of  a real  substance — ac- 
knowledged to  be  such  by  the  whole  scien- 
tific world — can,  by  simple  contact  with 
one  of  the  sense-membranes,  have  their 
impression  transferred  through  it  to  the 
corresponding  nerve,  and  thus  conveyed  to 
the  brain  without  air-waves  or  hypothetic 
odoriferous  vibrations,  then,  prythee,  thou 
learned  physicist,  why  all  this  labored 
effort  in  transferring  sonorous  impressions 
through  the  sensitive  membrane  of  the 
ear  by  means  of  impossible  undulations 
and  useless  vibratory  motions,  when  the 
beautiful  hypothesis  of  substantial  sono- 
rous corpuscles  solves  the  problem  exactly 
in  the  same  way? 

If  substantial  radiations  of  fragrance, 
intangible  to  any  sense  save  one,  can 
propagate  themselves  through  the  atmos- 


phere by  an  unknown  law  of  conduction 
and  diffusion,  without  aerial  or  any  other 
kind  of  undulator/  motion,  and  be  thus 
brought  into  direct  contact  with  the  sensi- 
tive nasal  membrane,  and  through  it  have 
their  impression  transferred  to  the  olfac- 
tory nerve,  and  thus  conveyed  along  this 
nerve  to  the  brain,  producing  the  sensation 
of  smell, without  the“transference”  through 
such  membrane  of  any  kind  of  external 
waves  or  vibratory  motions,  can  it  be  con- 
sidered an  impossible  or  unreasonable  as- 
sumption that  sound  also  may  consist  of 
corpuscles  alike  intangible  to  four  of  the 
senses,  be  propagated  by  somewhat  similar 
laws  of  radiation  and  conduction,  make 
their  characteristic  impression  on  the  mem- 
brane of  the  ear,  and  finally  through  it  be 
transferred  to  the  brain  by  an  analagous 
process?  Let  the  impartial  scientific  stu- 
dent and  physical  investigator  decide. 

If  there  were  no  other  argument  in  favor 
of  the  corpuscular  hypothesis  of  sound  and 
its  unbounded  superiority  in  every  respect 
over  wave-motion  in  solving  sonorous  prob- 
lems, this  simple  analogy  existing  between 
the  sensations  of  sound  and  odor  ought  to 
be  sufficient  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind, 
especially  taken  in  connection  with  these 
self-annihilating  efforts  of  physicists  in 
maintaining  the  wave-theory. 

The  erroneous  assumption  that  sound 
is  conveyed  through  the  atmosphere  by 
means  of  aerial  undulations,  the  folly  of 
which  must  by  this  time  begin  to  be  evident 
to  the  mind  of  the  reader,  has  led  to  all 
this  lamentable  waste  of  time,  ink,  and 
paper,  on  the  part  of  this  accomplished 
German  investigator,  whose  works  in  other 
departments  of  science,  as  well  as  in  this, 
give  evidence  of  great  mental  activity  and 
profundity  of  thought.  It  is  a real  pit)’', 
therefore,  that  Professor  Helmholtz  had 
not  first  of  all  brought  to  bear  his  analyt- 
ical and  splendid  mathematical  powers  on 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


1 86 


the  fundamental  facts  and  principles  of 
the  wave-theory  itself,  and  thus  have 
shown  its  complete  fallacy  as  a scientific 
hypothesis,  which  lie  certainly  would  have 
done  had  the  question  flatly  presented  it- 
self to  his  mind.  Had  he  been  fortunate 
enough  to  have  made  this  discovery,  or 
even  to  have  obtained  an  inkling  of  it, 
while  writing  out  his  Sensations  of  Tone , 
he  would  then  never  have  been  confronted 
with  these  self-stultifying  facts  of  his  the- 
ory, or  have  committed  himself  to  the 
labor  of  accomplishing  a “transference” 
to  the  auditory  nerve  of  air-waves  which 
do  not  exist;  or,  if  they  do  exist,  meet 
with  an  irresistible  “impediment”  in  the 
“drum-skin  of  the  ear, ’’against  which  they 
are  incapable  “ of  exerting  any  sensible  pres- 
sure.” 

How  a theory,  involving,  as  it  necessarily 
does,  these  constantly  recurring  self-con- 
tradictions, or  such  manifest  mechanical 
impossibilities  as  giving  to  a locust  the 
physical  strength  of  two  thousand  million 
horses,  could  ever  have  found  a lodgement 
in  the  intellects  of  such  careful  investiga- 
tors as  Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz,  and 
Mayer,  is  more  than  I can  bring  myself  to 
imagine.  Yet  this  very  mechanical  miracle 
of  an  insect,  by  the  motion  of  its  legs, 
shaking  two  thousand  million  tons  of  tym- 
panic membranes  by  bending  them  “ once 
in  and  once  out”  440  times  a second, — in- 
finitely more  impossible,  apparently,  than 
raising  the  dead, — is  subscribed  to  without 
the  least  mental  reservation  by  the  very 
men  who  laugh  at  the  idea  of  any  super- 
natural work,  or  of  any  mechanical  result 
being  effected  through  miraculous  inter- 
position or  without  an  adequate  physical 
cause;  and  who  even  do  not  hesitate  to 
ironically  propose  a physical  praying  test , 
covertly  to  gratify  their  contempt  for  be- 
lievers in  the  miraculous  origin  of  the 
Christian  religion! 


This  chapter,  extended  as  it  is,  would 
be  incomplete  without  a brief  examina- 
tion of  the  remarkable  phenomena  of  oi’er- 
tones,  resultant  tones, & c.,  so  elaborately  and 
critically  treated  in  the  great  work  of  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz  on  sound,  called  the 
Sensations  of  Tone,  already  so  frequently 
referi'ed  to  and  quoted  from  during  the 
progress  of  this  review. 

In  addition  to  the  acoustical  importance 
of  these  most  complex  of  all  the  problems 
connected  with  sound  production  and 
propagation,  they  appear  to  be  regarded 
by  physicists  as  specially  illustrative  of 
wave-motion  and  its  effects,  and  as  clearly 
explicable  on  no  other  hypothesis, — while 
to  the  casual  observer,  after  reading  the 
explanation  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  it 
would  be  regarded  as  futile  in  the  extreme 
to  attempt  their  solution  on  the  hypothesis 
of  corpuscular  emissions,  as  here  main- 
tained. I therefore  deem  it  a fitting  sub- 
ject, in  connection  with  one  or  two  collat- 
eral questions,  on  which  to  devote  a few 
pages  in  bringing  this  long  chapter  to  a 
close.  * 

Over-tones,  or  “ partial  tones”  as  they  are 
sometimes  called,  are  faint  secondary 
sounds  of  a higher  pitch  than  the  primary 
or  fundamental  tones  which  generate  them, 
and  are  heard  by  a cultivated  ear,  and  by 
a proper  act  of  attention,  accompanying 
the  sounds  of  strings,  pipes,  reeds,  &c. 
They  are  always  the  effect  of  a single 
primary  tone. 

Another  class  of  secondary  sounds  are 
called  resultant  tones,  or  differential  tones, 
which  occur  as  the  result  of  a chord,  such 
as  a third  or  a fifth,  and  are  faintly  heard 
as  low, droning  sounds, always  deeper  than 
the  lowest  note  of  the  chord  which  gen- 
erates them,  and  often  as  much  as  three 
or  four  octaves  deeper  than  the  lowest 
generating  note.  It  is  maintained  by 
Helmholtz,  and  no  doubt  correctly,  that 


CHAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


187 


the  vibrational  number  of  this  resultant 
tone  is  always  equal  to  the  difference  be- 
tween the  vibrational  numbers  of  the  two 
generating  tones.  That  is,  if  the  two  notes 
of  the  chord  are  fifty  vibrations  apart, 
whatever  portion  of  the  audible  register 
they  may  occupy, — even  if  one  is  five  hun- 
dred and  the  other  five  hundred  and  fifty 
vibrations  a second, — the  resultant  tone 
will  have  but  fifty  vibrations  in  a second, 
or  the  number  constituting  the  difference 
between  them.  Hence,  he  calls  them 
“differential  tones.” 

This  eminent  investigator  devotes  much 
time  and  many  pages  of  his  work  to  the 
analysis  and  elucidation  of  these  second- 
ary sounds,  and  may  almost  be  said  to 
be  the  discoverer  of  them,  since  he  is  the 
first  to  classify  them  and  point  out  the 
true  mode  of  recognizing  them,  and 
thereby  of  demonstrating  their  actual  ob- 
jective existence  in  the  air,  thus  meeting 
the  common  objection  that  they  are  only 
the  effect  of  the  imagination. 

Among  the  various  means  employed  and 
illustrated  by  this  author  for  detecting 
these  secondary  sounds,  and  thus  proving 
their  objective  existence,  is  an  invention 
of  his  own  which  he  calls  a resonator , 
which  enables  the  investigator  to  vastly 
augment  the  intensity  of  any  particular 
tone  he  chooses  to  examine,  while  other 
tones  not  in  unison  with  the  air-chamber 
of  the  resonator  will  be  excluded,  or  at 
least  will  not  be  augmented. 

In  using  the  resonator,  it  is  first  tuned 
to  the  exact  pitch  of  the  over-tone  we  may 
wish  to  isolate  and  hear,  so  that  its  column 
of  air  will  sympathetically  vibrate  to  that 
particular  pitch  of  tone,  while  the  absence 
of  sympathetic  vibration  for  any  other 
note  prevents,  as  just  remarked,  its  aug- 
mentation, and  thus  enables  the  entire  at- 
tention to  be  concentrated  upon  one  tone 
at  a time.  By  holding  the  focus-nozzle  of 


the  resonator  to  the  ear,  and  directing  its 
open  mouth  to  the  sounding  string,  the 
special  over-tone  with  which  it  is  in  unison 
will  be  distinctly  heard,  as  if  it  were  the 
fundamental  tone,  even  when  the  most 
sensitive  ear  would  have  failed  to  detect 
its  presence  without  this  augmenting  de- 
vice. In  this  manner,  with  a special  reso- 
nator tuned  for  every  possible  theoretical 
over-tone,  the  presence  or  absence  of  any 
such  tones  may  be  absolutely  known,  and 
recorded. 

These  secondary  sounds  are  much  more 
numerous  and  distinct  in  connection  with 
the  tones  of  some  instruments  than  others, 
particularly  in  connection  with  the  primary 
tones  of  bowed  strings.  So  rich  are  these 
in  over-tones  that  this  physicist,  as  he  as- 
sures us,  has  detected  as  high  as  eighteen , 
generated  in  connection  with  a single  fun- 
damental tone,  each  over-tone  of  a separate 
pitch  and  different  degree  of  intensity — 
the  loudness  diminishing  as  the  pitch  becomes 
higher , until  they  finally  become  inaudible 
even  when  the  ear  is  aided  by  the  best 
resonator.  How  much  higher  these  partial 
sounds  may  extend  beyond  the  register 
of  audibility,  it  is,  of  course,  not  known, 
though  the  possibility  of  their  almost  in- 
finite extension  and  corresponding  diminu- 
tion in  intensity  will  be  apparent  when 
their  true  corpuscular  origin  is  under- 
stood. 

The  principal  object  this  investigator 
appeared  to  have  in  view,  in  thus  analyz- 
ing and  demonstrating  the  existence  of 
these  over-tones,  was  not  only  to  prove 
the  actual  presence  of  such  secondary 
sounds,  but  by  means  of  them  to  account 
satisfactorily  for  the  quality  of  tone,  or  that 
peculiar  something  which  is  sometimes 
designated  as  timbre  or  clang-tint,  by  which 
we  can  instantly  distinguish  the  sound  of 
a violin,  for  example,  from  that  of  a flute, 
or  the  note  of  a clarionet  from  that  of  a 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


1 88 


trumpet,  even  when  the  sounds  are  of  the 
same  pitch  and  of  the  same  intensity.  It 
is  but  fair  to  say  that  his  reasons  for  the 
actual  existence  of  these  secondary  sounds, 
as  well  as  for  their  effect,  as  being  the  true 
cause  of  the  quality  of  tone  in  different  in- 
struments, are  unquestionably  good  and 
sufficient. 

I do  not,  therefore,  call  in  question  or 
doubt  the  truth  of  the  existence  of  these 
secondary  tones,  which,  in  a violin-string, 
correspond  in  pitch  to  its  so-called  har- 
monics, some  ten  in  number,  and  which, 
as  musicians  know,  are  made  by  bowing 
lightly  while  barely  touching  the  various 
nodes  of  the  string  with  the  finger.  But 
while  I admit  the  fact  of  their  existence, 
and  their  effecs,  I do  not  believe  in  the 
cause  which  this  great  physicist  assigns 
for  their  generation,  or  the  manner  of  their 
propagation  through  the  air.  I go  even 
further,  and  deny  in  toto  that  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  can  even  remotely  account 
for  their  existence,  or  explain  a single  phe- 
nomenon connected  with  their  occurrence. 
I now  propose  to  examine  briefly  the  solu- 
tion offered  by  Professor  Helmholtz,  and 
adopted  from  him  by  all  modern  physicists, 
after  which  I will  attempt  their  true  solu- 
tion on  the  corpuscular  hypothesis. 

He  starts  out  with  the  assumption,  or 
what  he  designates  as  a “law,”  that  since 
the  rate  of  vibration  in  the  sounding  in- 
strument causes  the  pitch  of  tone,  and  the 
amplitude  of  vibration  or  width  of  swing 
causes  the  strength  of  tone,  as  universally 
admitted,  so  the  form  of  the  vibration,  or 
the  peculiar  motion  assumed  by  the  sound- 
ing body,  must  cause  the  quality  of  tone. 
And  as  the  quality  of  tone  results  directly 
from  the  combination  of  these  over-tones 
with  the  primary  tone,  hence  the  form  of 
the  movement  of  the  vibrating  instrument 
must  necessarily  generate  these  secondary 
tones!  And,  of  course,  as  all  tones  must 


be  propagated  by  means  of  corresponding 
air-waves,  it  follows,  if  the  current  hypoth- 
esis be  true,  that  the  peculiar  forin  of  vi- 
bration in  the  violin-string,  for  example, 
which  generates  its  ten  different  over-tones 
must  necessarily  be  transferred  to  the  air, 
which  faithfully  transmits  the  same  vibra- 
tional form  in  ten  superimposed  systems 
of  waves  to  the  tympanic  membrane,  which 
finishes  the  work  begun  by  the  string  by 
acting  out  the  same  tenfold  vibrational 
form,  and  thus  transfers  the  ten  separate 
sounds  to  the  auditory  nerve!  This  con- 
cisely and  truthfully  gives  the  view  of  this 
eminent  investigator,  almost  in  his  own 
language. 

The  Professor  insists  upon  this  so-called 
“vibrational  form”  of  the  string,  and  of 
the  superimposed  systems  of  air-waves  as 
the  proper  cause  of  the  generation  and 
propagation  of  these  secondary  tones, 
which  determine  the  quality  of  sound,  as 
a necessary  and  even  unavoidable  conclu- 
sion, since  there  is  nothing  else  left  to  produce 
them  after  assigning  the  pitch  of  tone  to 
the  rate  of  vibration,  and  the  strength  or 
intensity  of  tone  to  its  amplitude!  Hence, 
he  argues,  by  excluding  every  other  ad- 
equate cause,  we  logically  prove  that  the 
quality  of  tone  must  result  from  the  form 
of  vibration. 

Now,  if  the  premises  were  correct — that 
every  other  assumption  had  been  exhausted 
as  a supposable  cause  for  these  over-tones 
— then  his  logic  would  be  good.  I deny 
the  correctness  of  the  premises,  and  will 
state  the  “law”  in  such  a way  as  to  involve 
what  I hope  to  show  to  be  the  correct  so- 
lution of  this  problem.  It  is  as  follows: — 

As  the  rate  of  vibration  causes  the  pitch 
of  tone,  and  the  amplitude  of  vibration 
causes  the  strength  of  tone,  so  the  product 
of  vibration — or  the  character  of  the  sono- 
rous corpuscles  generated  — causes  the 
quality  of  tone ! Consequently  these  over- 


CHAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


189 


tones  must  be  produced  by  the  action  of 
the  sound-corpuscles  themselves.  I appeal 
to  the  candid  reader  at  the  very  start,  and 
on  the  bare  statement  of  the  “law”  as  I 
have  given  it,  if  it  does  not  strike  the  mind 
much  more  like  a rational  solution  of  these 
over-tones,  which  cause  the  quality  of 
sound,  than  the  supposition  that  a string 
actually  goes  through  at  one  time  with 
ten  different  rates  of  vibratory  motion  per 
second,  which  must  be  included  in  this 
idea  of  “form,”  each  motion  of  a distinctly 
different  amplitude  or  width  of  swing,  to 
produce  the  different  degrees  of  pitch  and 
loudness,  and  then  transmits  this  “vibra- 
tional form”  to  the  tympanic  membrane 
by  means  of  a tenfold  undulatory  motion 
of  the  air  carved  and  moulded  into  ten 
separate  but  superimposed  systems  of 
waves,  in  each  one  of  which  the  same  air- 
particles  must  necessarily  pass  through 
ten  distinct  rates  of  vibratory  motion  at 
one  time ! This  must  necessarily  be  the 
case,  because,  in  each  separate  wave,  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  assures  us,  the  particles  of 
air  constituting  it  make  a ‘'''small  excursion 
to  and  fro,”  which  is  called  “ the  amplitude 
of  vibration,”  and  therefore  ten  sounds, 
with  ten  separate  systems  of  waves  passing 
through  the  same  atmosphere  at  the  same 
time,  however  superimposed,  must  cause 
the  same  air-particles  to  make  ten  different 
excursions  “to  and  fro,”  each  excursion  of 
an  independent  rate  per  second,  and  each 
excursion  driving  the  same  air-particles 
through  a different  distance  or  width  of  am- 
plitude, since  the  ten  sounds  are  all  of  dif- 
ferent pitch  and  of  different  intensity!  I 
ask  if  this  correct  but  condensed  view  of 
the  wave-hypothesis  is  not  more  difficult 
to  believe,  as  the  true  cause  of  these  ten 
different  over-tones  passing  off  from  the 
same  string  at  the  same  time,  than  to  sup- 
pose, as  I have  assumed,  that  the  substan- 
tial sonorous  pulses  contain  within  their 


corpuscles  the  intrinsic  elements  which 
constitute  these  tones  of  different  pitch 
and  intensity?  However  it  may  strike  the 
reader  at  present,  I venture  to  assure  him 
that  it  will  seem  far  the  more  rational  view 
before  he  has  finished  this  chapter. 

The  foregoing  presentation  of  the  im- 
possible motions  of  the  air  involved  in  ten 
separate  systems  of  waves  necessary  for 
the  propagation  of  ten  separate  tones 
through  the  same  atmosphere  at  the  same 
time,  is  no  exaggeration  of  the  real  diffi- 
culty which  lies  in  the  way  of  Professor 
Helmholtz  and  his  attempted  solution  of 
over-tones  by  means  of  ten  so-called  super- 
imposed systems  of  air-waves. 

I have  already  shown,  by  an  abundance 
of  citations,  that  there  is  no  possible  way 
for  the  sound  of  a string,  however  complex, 
to  be  heard,  according  to  the  wave-theory, 
but  for  the  tympanic  membrane  to  take 
on  a vibratory  motion  corresponding  to 
the  “vibrational  form”  and  “number”  of 
the  string  in  producing  such  tone ; and 
no  way  for  the  tympanic  membrane  to  be 
thrown  into  this  complex  vibration  but  by 
the  dashing  of  an  equally  complex  com- 
bination of  air-waves  against  it.  Thus,  the 
string  must  first  of  all  assume  the  ten  sep- 
arate vibrational  movements  at  one  time 
to  make  these  ten  tones;  then  send  them 
through  the  air  in  ten  separate  but  super- 
imposed and  conglomerated  systems  of 
air-waves,  having  each  a separate  vibra- 
tional rate  and  width  of  amplitude,  though 
combined  somehow  into  one  system ; and 
finally,  as  they  strike  the  drum-skin  of  the 
ear,  that  membrane  must  literally  repro- 
duce this  vibrational  form  by  taking  on 
ten  separate  systems  of  vibratory  motion, 
having  ten  vibrational  numbers  or  rates 
of  oscillation  per  second,  and  ten  antag- 
onistic amplitudes  or  widths  of  swing  at 
the  same  time ! Is  such  an  infinitely  in- 
conceivable physical  and  mechanical  op- 


190 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


eration  as  I have  here  described  possible 
or  even  supposable?  And,  in  view  of  its 
utter  impracticability,  even  disguised  un- 
der so-called  “superposition,”  is  not  almost 
any  other  hypothesis,  which  pretends  to 
offer  a solution  of  the  problem,  compara- 
tively safe?  At  all  events,  whether  or  not 
any  other  explanation  shall  be  made  en- 
tirely satisfactory,  air-waves  and  tympanic 
vibration  have  already  been  shown  in  va- 
rious ways  to  be  unreasonable  and  impos- 
sible in  the  very  nature  of  things. 

But  we  are  constantly  met  in  the  writings 
of  Professors  Helmholtz  and  Tyndall  with 
what  they  call,  as  already  hinted,  the  “su- 
perposition” of  a number  of  systems  of 
waves,  thus  blending  them  into  one  sys- 
tem, embracing,  as  they  express  it,  the 
“algebraical  sum”  of  all  the  different 
aerial  motions!  Now,  all  this  sort  of  lan- 
guage only  serves  to  cover  up  the  difficulty 
without  affording  the  least  explanation. 
When  asked  to  tell  how  such  a thing  is 
possible,  they  explain  it  in  their  usual  lucid 
manner  by  saying  that  the  air-particles  act 
“according  to  the  law  of  the  parallelogram 
of  forces."  These  mysterious  phrases  con- 
stitute their  stock  in  trade  on  this  subject, 
and  answer  for  a universal  solution.  If 
they  stumble  upon  the  undeniable  fact 
that  a score  of  distinct  tones  of  different 
pitch  and  of  different  intensity  can  enter 
the  aural  passage  undistorted, and  be  heard 
separately  at  the  same  time;  and  if  the 
query  propounds  itself  how  twenty  different 
systems  of  air-waves  can  all  clash  in  this 
narrow  aperture,  no  larger  than  a quill, 
and  yet  remain  undistorted,  and  each  sep- 
arate tone  be  heard  as  if  it  alone  was 
present,  these  learned  physicists  appear 
to  fold  their  arms,  shut  their  eyes,  and  re- 
iterate “superposition,”  “algebraical  sum,” 
“parallelogram  of  forces,”  and  expect  the 
reader  to  be  satisfied! 

All  their  reference,  for  aid  and  comfort, 


to  water-waves,  with  small  systems  of  un- 
dulations crawling  over  the  surfaces  of 
large  billows,  which  they  constantly  resort 
to, amounts  to  nothing  in  this  case,  as  they 
will  see  to  their  astonishment  at  the  close 
of  the  next  chapter.  Waves  of  sound  do 
not  act  on  the  surface  of  the  atmosphere  at 
all , and  can  not  be  made  to  do  so  unless 
we  can  construct  some  kind  of  a Jacob’s 
ladder  to  reach  forty-five  miles  high. 

Both  these  writers  tell  us,  in  a score  of 
places,  that  sound-waves  can  only  consist 
of  “condensations  and  rarefactions  of  the 
air,”  each  tone  having  a degree  of  conden- 
sation corresponding  to  the  width  of  its 
amplitude  (loudness)  or  rate  of  oscillation 
“to  and  fro”  (pitch).  Hence,  such  a thing 
as  crest  or  sinus  is  out  of  the  question  in 
so-called  air-waves;  and  therefore  the  su- 
perposition of  small  crests  upon  the  sur- 
faces of  large  ones,  to  which  reference  is 
made  in  water-waves,  forms  no  manner  of 
illustration  of  the  intermingling  of  air- 
particles  in  these  so-called  “condensations 
and  rarefactions.” 

Of  course,  the  common-sense  reader 
would  say,  if  we  can  hear  twenty  distinct 
sounds  at  one  time,  which  we  certainly 
can,  and  which  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
we  can  isolate  any  particular  tone  out  of 
that  number  to  which  we  direct  special 
attention,  then  it  must  follow  that  within 
this  narrow  aperture  of  the  ear  there  are 
twenty  different  degrees  of  condensation 
of  the  same  air-particles  at  the  same  time, 
cr  else  that  many  sounds  could  not  co-exist 
in  the  aural  passage  on  the  principle  of 
air-waves.  Would  not  this  be  the  only 
sensible  and  logical  conclusion  ? Professor 
Helmholtz  emphatically  admits  that  such 
multiple  condensation  of  the  same  air-par- 
ticles at  the  same  time  is  impossible  : — 

“Two  different  degrees  of  density,  produced  by 
two  different  systems  of  waves,  can  not  co-exist  in 
the  someplace  at  the  same  time." — “It  is  evident 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


191 


that  at  each  point  in  the  mass  of  air,  at  each  instant 
of  time,  there  can  he  only  one  single  degree  of  con- 
densation. " — Sensations  of  Tone  pp.  40,  42. 

Hence,  inevitably  it  follows,  if  a sound- 
pulse  is  constituted  of  a distinct  condensa- 
tion and  a rarefaction , that  but  one  sound 
can  exist  in  the  aural  passage  at  one  time; 
for  there  can  be  no  “superposition”  of 
condensations  or  of  the  mere  squeezing  of  the 
air-farticles  together,  whatever  “algebraical 
sum”  or  “parallelogram  of  forces”  may  be 
brought  to  bear  on  the  proper  crests  and 
sinuses  of  water-waves.  Think  of  twenty 
distinct  tones  from  as  many  different  or- 
chestral instruments,  all  occupying  one 
small  column  of  air  an  inch  long  and  the 
size  of  a straw,  that  each  sound  is  consti- 
tuted alone  of  such  a “condensation  and 
rarefaction,”  and  that  these  twenty  differ- 
ent degrees  of  density  and  as  many  different 
degrees  of  rarity  are  all  acting  at  one  in- 
stant on  this  same  trifling  mass  of  air,  thus 
making  twenty  separate  impressions  on  the 
auditory  nerve!  Can  any  intelligent  mind 
accept  the  idea  that  this  conglomerate 
mixture  of  density  and  rarity,  and  it  alone, 
acting  on  these  air-particles,  is  sufficient 
to  account  for  twenty  defined  and  dis- 
tinctly audible  musical  sounds? 

In  the  whole  of  Professor  Helmholtz’s 
work  on  sound,  it  is  a fact  that  he  makes 
but  one  single  weak  attempt  to  explain 
what  he  means  by  this  “superposition”  of 
two  systems  of  air- waves,  or  what  we  are 
to  understand  by  this  “algebraical  sum” 
of  the  aerial  motions  constituting  a number 
of  such  separate  systems.  His  attempted 
explanation  is  apparently  so  cautiously 
outspoken  and  so  rich  in  scientific  poverty 
that  I can  not  help  quoting  it.  Yes,  I will 
quote  the  whole  of  it,  constituting  all  there 
is  to  say  about  this  “algebraical  sum”  of 
the  different  motions  acting  on  a separate 
“particle  of  air,”  to  which  I ask  the  reader’s 
attention : — 


“ The  displacements  of  the  particles  of  air  are 
compounded  in  a similar  manner  [to  water-waves]. 
If  the  displacements  of  two  different  systems  of 
waves  are  not  in  the  same  direction  they  are  com- 
pounded diagonally ; for  example,  if  one  system 
would  drive  a particle  of  air  upwards , and  another 
to  the  right,  its  real  path  will  be  obliquely  upwards 
towards  the  right.  For  our  present  purpose  there  is 
no  occasion  to  enter  more  particularly  into  such  com- 
positions of  motion  in  different  directions .” — Sensa- 
tions of  Tone,  p.  42. 

Here  the  reader  has  all  there  is  to  be 
said  in  elucidation  of  this  fundamental 
principle  of  the  wave-theory,  which  neces- 
sarily requires  the  same  “particle  of  air” 
situated  in  the  aural  passage  to  embody 
in  itself  the  “algebraical  sum”  of  all  the 
motions  of  twenty  distinct  systems  of 
waves  sent  off  from  an  orchestra  of  that 
many  instruments,  each  system  having  a 
different  width  of  swing  and  different 
number  of  oscillations  per  second, — one 
system  driving  the  particle  of  air  upward, 
another  perchance  downward, — one  send- 
ing it  to  the  left,  another  to  the  right, — 
one  hitting  it  “obliquely,”  another  “diag- 
onally,”— the  whole  twenty  systems  mak- 
ing it  the  battledore  and  shuttlecock  of 
this  contradictory  hypothesis,  which,  after 
it  has  been  acted  on  by  all  these  systems 
at  one  time  and  in  twenty  different  direc- 
tions, with  that  many  different  velocities 
and  throughout  that  many  different  dis- 
tances, is  still  capable  of  transmitting  the 
result  to  the  auditory  nerve  in  twenty  dis- 
tinct and  symmetrically  formed  musical 
sounds,  as  the  “algebraical  sum”  or  “su- 
perposition” of  all  these  contradictory  mo- 
tions! No  wonder  the  “parallelogram  of 
forces”  has  to  be  called  in  to  aid  such  a 
muddle  as  this.  Yet  this  is  “science”! 

I do  not  intend  that  the  reader  shall 
overlook  what  might  be  strictly  called  a 
scientific  dodge  resorted  to  by  Professor 
Helmholtz  in  the  last  quotation.  After 
elaborately  showing  how  two  system's  of 
water-waves  can  collide  and  be  superim- 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


192 


posed  by  the  crests  of  one  system  being 
added  to  those  of  another,  he  instantly 
shifts  the  solution  when  he  comes  to  trdat 
of  sound  from  the  waves  to  the  particles 
constituting  them.  He  does  not  say  a 
word  about  Oat  particles  constituting  water- 
waves,  or  their  “real  path”  under  the  action 
of  two  forces,  since  their  motion  is  entirely 
a different  thing  from  that  of  the  onward 
moving  swell  constituting  the  wave  proper, 
to  which  he  gave  his  whole  attention.  He 
dwells  -lengthily  on  the  superposition  of 
little  water-crests  compounded  with  larger 
crests,  without  reference  to  the  motion  of  the 
particles  of  water  constituting  them , but  the 
moment  he  comes  to  apply  the  analogy  to 
sound  he  drops  the  combined  movement 
of  the  air-waves  and  goes  to  work  to  show 
how  a single 11  particle  of  air"  may  be  driven 
“upward”  by  one  system  of  waves,  and 
“to  the  right”  by  another, which  two  forces 
compounded  or  “superimposed”  will  send 
this  particle  “obliquely”!  Why  this  sudden 
shifting  from  the  motions  of  water-waves 
and  their  “superposition”  to  the  motions 
of  particles  of  air  constituting  sound-waves? 
Evidently  because  no  such  thing  as  air -waves 
has  an  existence  in  any  true  sense,  as  com- 
pared to  water-waves  or  any  other  proper 
wave-motion.  True  science  does  not  re- 
quire temporizing  dodges  or  shifts  of  any 
kind. 

But  look  again  at  this  singular  passage 
last  quoted.  Instead  of  telling  us,  as  he 
does,  that  “if  one  system  would  drive  a 
particle  of  air  upwards  and  another  to  the 
right,  its  real  path  will  be  obliquely  upwards 
towards  the  right,"  why  does  he  not  try  to 
tell  us  what  would  be  “its  real  path”  if  one 
wave  should  strike  it  and  drive  it  upward, 
and  another  should  strike  it  at  the  same 
rime  and  drive  it  downward, — if  one  wave 
should  send  it  to  the  right  and  another  to 
the  left, — if  one  should  hurl  it  “obliquely  ” 
and  another  at  the  same  instant  should  hit 


it  with  equal  force  and  drift  it  “diagonally” 
in  an  opposite  direction, — and  if  the  twenty 
systems  of  waves  should  all  act  on  the  same 
principle,  each  manipulating  the  same 
“particle  of  air  in  the  aural  passage,  and 
all  combining  to  send  it  in  ten  opposite 
directions  at  the  same  time  ? He  prudently 
avoids  any  such  self-stultifying  inquiry  as 
this,  and  wisely  concludes — “ Eor  our  pres- 
ent purpose  there  is  no  occasion  to  enter  more 
particularly  into  such  compositions  of  motion 
in  different  directions."  This  is  a specimen 
of  so-called  modern  science,  which  claims 
to  grapple  fearlessly  with  the  most  abstruse 
and  difficult  problems! 

The  truth  is,  the  particles  of  air  in  the 
aural  passage,  when  twenty  diverse  systems 
of  sound-waves  are  entering  the  ear  at  the 
same  time,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the 
wave-theory,  are  just  as  liable  to  be  hit 
and  driven  in  ten  directions  diametrically 
opposed  to  ten  other  impulses,  and  thus  to 
stand  perfectly  still  under  their  equally 
compounded  blows,  as  to  move  at  all  in 
any  direction  or  to  any  extent!  What, 
then,  becomes  of  the  twenty  tones?  They 
are  all  silenced,  of  course,  as  they  can  only 
be  heard  by  the  periodic  oscillations  of  the 
air-particles  in  their  “excursion  to  and 
fro”  constituting  their  respective  systems 
of  waves.  But  since  there  would  be  no 
motion  of  the  air-particles  under  the  coun- 
teraction of  ten  equal  forces  in  opposite 
directions,  the  twenty  tones,  as  any  one 
must  see,  would  necessarily  cease.  Is  it 
possible  that  our  hearing  of  twenty  differ- 
ent sounds  from  an  orchestra  of  that  many 
pieces  depends  upon  any  such  acoustical 
contingencies  as  this  accidental  commin- 
gling of  waves  here  pointed  out?  Yet 
even  this  possible  neutralization  of  aerial 
motion,  under  counteracting  impulses,  is 
also  included  in  such  meaningless  ver- 
biage as  “superposition”  and  “algebraical 
sum.” 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


l9  3 


In  view  of  all  these  contradictory  results 
of  wave-motion,  is  not  the  corpuscular  as- 
sumption, that  the  twenty  distinct  sounds 
of  different  pitch  and  different  intensity 
enter  the  ear  by  means  of  twenty  corre- 
sponding systems  of  substantial  sonorous 
pulses,  infinitely  more  consistent,  beautiful, 
and  every  way  reasonable?  That  it  is  so 
will  even  yet  be  made  entirely  clear  before 
this  chapter  is  finished. 

To  show  that  I do  not  deal  in  guess-work 
when  speaking  of  ten  partial  or  over-tones 
heard  in  connection  with  the  primary  tone 
of  a violin-string,  each  of  a different  pitch 
and  of  a different  degree  o£  intensity  or 
loudness,  I will  give  the  exact  words  of 
Professor  Helmholtz : — 

“When  a string  is  excited  by  a violin-bow,  and 
speaks  well,  all  the  upper  partial  tones  which  can 
be  formed  by  a string  of  its  rigidity  are  present, and 
their  intensity  diminishes  as  their  pitch  increases. 
[That  is,  they  grow  weaker  as  they  get  higher.] 

. . . The  upper  partials  in  the  compound  tone  of  a 
violin  are  heard  easily,  and  will  be  found  to  be 
strong  in  sound  if  they  have  been  first  produced  as 
so-called  harmonics  on  the  string  by  bowing  lightly 
while  gently  touching  a node  of  the  required  partial 
tone.  The  strings  of  a violin  will  allow  the  har- 
monics to  be  produced  as  high  as  the  sixth  partial 
tone  with  ease,  and  with  some  difficulty  even  up  to 
the  tenth." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  133. 

I have  not,  therefore,  misconceived  nor 
misrepresented  the  explanation  of  over- 
tones as  given  by  this  authority.  As  each 
one  of  the  ten  harmonics  of  a violin-string 
is  produced  by  touching  the  proper  node, 
and  thus  physically  and  mechanically 
throwing  the  string  or  a particular  section 
of  it  into  a corresponding  rate  and  ampli- 
tude of  vibration,  it  follows,  if  the  solution 
of  Professor  Helmholtz  is  correct,  that, 
these  ten  harmonic  over-tones  are  actually 
produced  in  connection  with  the  primary 
tone  in  the  same  manner,  by  eleven  (in- 
cluding the  primary)  systems  of  vibratory 
motion  of  the  string  and  its  various  sec- 
tions progressing  at  the  same  instant,  each 


of  different  amplitude  and  at  a different 
rate  of  oscillation  per  second!  And,  as 
before  observed,  since  no  sound  can  be 
heard  without  a corresponding  system  of 
air-waves  and  a corresponding  system  of 
tympanic  oscillations,  there  is  no  possible 
escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  same 
string,  the  same  air-particles, and  the  same 
tympanic  membrane,  must  be  capable  of 
eleven  different  and  antagonistic  ampli- 
tudes and  rates  of  oscillation  at  the  same 
instant!  I again  ask,  is  such  a thing  as 
this  possible?  To  show  that  it  is  not, 
Professor  Helmholtz,  as  already  quoted, 
unmistakably  gives  his  testimony  as  fob 
lows : — 

“ Any  particle  of  air  can,  of  course,  execute  only 
one  motion  at  one  time.” — “It  is  evident  that  at 
each  point  in  the  mass  of  air,  at  each  instant  of 
time,  there  can  be  only  one  single  degree  of  conden- 
sation, and  that  the  particles  of  air  can  be  moving 
with  only  one  single  determinate  kind  of  motion, 
having  only  one  single  determinate  amount  of  ve- 
locity, and  passing  only  in  one  single  determinate 
direction.  ” — Sensations  of  Tone,  pp.  40,  222. 

How,  then,  in  the  name  of  reason  and 
science,  can  the  same  air-particles  receive 
and  transport  eleven  different  superim- 
posed systems  of  undulations,  each  system 
causing  these  air-particles  to  move  at  a 
different  number  of  swings  per  second,  at 
a different  velocity,  and  through  a differ- 
ent distance,  at  one  and  the  same  instant? 
Really,  opposing  the  wave-theory  as  I am 
now  doing,  I have  no  language  at  my  com- 
mand in  which  to  so  effectually  declare 
the  utter  impracticability  of  the  hypothesis 
as  is  made  use  of  in  the  above  sweeping 
generalization  by  Professor  Helmholtz. 

Professor  Tyndall  is  equally  explicit  on 
this  subject,  admitting  tacitly  and  unmis- 
takably in  a single  sentence  that  sound 
does  not  and  can  not  pass  through  the  at- 
mosphere by  means  of  air-waves.  I ask 
the  reader’s  special  attention  to  the  lan- 
guage of  this  eminent  authority: — 


>94 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


“ I have  already  had  occasion  to  state  to  you  that 
when  several  sounds  traverse  the  same  air , each  par- 
ticular sound  passes  through  the  air  as  if  it  alone 
were  present." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  281. 

A more  point-blank  contradiction  of  his 
teaching  in  numerous  other  passages  could 
not  be  put  into  language,  as  will  be  prom- 
inently pointed  out  in  the  next  chapter. 
It  is  enough  to  say  here  that  this  statement 
shows  conclusively,  though  unintended, 
that  eleven  sounds  passing  through  the 
same  air  at  the  same  time,  “eac/t  particular 
sound  . . . as  if  it  alone  were  present can 
not  be  accomplished  by  eleven  systems  of 
air-waves,  since  it  is  well  known  that  such 
air-waves,  the  same  as  that  many  systems 
of  water-waves,  must  conflict  and  naturally 
interfere  with  each  other,  mutually  de- 
stroying or  neutralizing  each  other  when- 
ever the  crests  of  one  system  happen  to 
fall  into  the  troughs  of  another,  as  eleven 
different  systems  would  be  necessarily  and 
continually  doing,  as  Professor  Tyndall 
well  knows,  and  teaches  in  a score  of 
places.  Hence,  the  above  quotation  alone 
overthrows  the  hypothesis  of  these  eleven 
different  over-tones  being  constituted  of 
eleven  systems  of  superimposed  air-waves, 
if  there  was  not  another  consideration  to 
be  urged  against  it. 

But  this  impossible  occurrence  of  eleven 
conflicting  systems  of  vibrational  move- 
ments in  a single  string,  and  of  eleven 
antagonistic  systems  of  air-waves  sent  off 
from  the  same  string  at  one  instant,  each 
system  of  a different  amplitude  and  having 
a distinct  and  independent  number  of  os- 
cillations of  the  air-particles  per  second, 
does  not  constitute  the  whole  nor  the  worst 
of  this  impracticable  theory  of  over-tones 
invented  by  Professor  Helmholtz,  and 
copied  by  Professors  Tyndall  and  Mayer. 
As  I have  already  intimated,  these  writers 
do  not  rest  satisfied  till  they  have  carried 
these  eleven  antagonistic  rates  of  vibratory 


motion  and  widths  of  swing  to  the  tym- 
panic membrane,  since  they  distinctly  tell 
us  that  these  oscillations  are  exactly  re- 
produced from  the  eleven  systems  of  air- 
waves on  this  drum-skin  of  the  ear , which 
takes  up  and  literally  acts  out  all  these 
conflicting  and  contradictory  motions  at 
one  and  the  same  time, — which  necessarily 
involves  the  mechanical  impossibility  of  a 
bit  of  membrane,  about  a third  of  an  inch 
in  diameter,  stretched  across  the  auricular 
passage,  keeping  up  eleven  distinct  sys- 
tems of  superimposed  vibrational  move- 
ments, each  system  of  a different  rate  per 
second  and  each  having  a different  and 
independent  amplitude  or  distance  of  mo- 
tion ! 

By  turning  back  to  the  important  quota- 
tions already  made  from  their  works  (pp. 
175,  176),  it  will  be  seen  that  these  writers 
distinctly  assume  what  I have  here  stated, 
namely,  that  this  diminutive  membrane  of 
the  ear  not  only  acts  out  the  eleven  vibra- 
tional numbers  represented  by  the  tones 
of  the  violin-string,  oscillating  with  as 
many  different  amplitudes  and  vibrational 
rates  per  second,  but  they  even  teach,  as 
quoted  from  Professor  Tyndall,  that  a 
“thousand”  complex  and  conflicting  sys- 
tems of  air-waves  have  their  vibratory 
motions  reproduced  on  this  delicate  drum- 
skin  of  the  ear! 

In  view  of  the  paramount  importance  of 
the  subject,  I shall  be  obliged,  therefore, 
prior  to  further  investigating  the  cause  of 
over-tones,  resultant  tones,  &c.,  to  digress 
sufficiently  to  again  present  and  meet  this 
vital  question  of  tympanic  vibration  in  its 
new  and  various  phases,  as  presented  by 
Professor  Helmholtz  in  his  able  and  ex- 
haustive work  on  the  office  filled  by  the 
different  parts  of  the  ear;  and  shall  under- 
take to  show  that  physicists  are  wholly 
mistaken  in  this  fundamental  principle  of 
the  wave-theory,  and  hence  are  mistaken 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


l95 


in  the  whole  theory,  since  it  is,  in  fact, 
upon  this  the  entire  superstructure  rests. 
As  this  learned  investigator  deems  the  vi- 
bratory motion  of  the  different  parts  of 
the  ear  in  response  to  tone  as  the  only 
means  of  hearing  so  essential  to  the  cur- 
rent theory  of  sound  that  he  devotes  forty 
pages  of  his  book  to  that  special  question, 
the  reader  will  surely  pardon  half  a dozen 
pages  in  reply. 

In  this  general  denial  that  sound  is 
heard  or  intended  to  be  heard  by  means 
of  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  tympanic 
membrane  in  response  to  whatever  pitch 
of  tone,  I wish  here  to  guard  against  what 
might  appear  to  be  a conflict  with  observed 
facts.  I do  not  claim  that  this  “drum- 
skin  of  the  ear,”  rigid  and  circumscribed 
in  area  as  it  is,  could  not  be  jarred  into 
slight  tremor,  apparently,  by  a very  loud 
sound  in  close  proximity,  such  as  that  of 
a powerful  steam-whistle, — though  really 
not  by  the  sound  at  all,  when  we  come  to 
look  at  the  matter  critically,  but  by  the 
tremor  of  the  air  thrown  into  agitation  by 
the  same  vibratory  motion  which  generates 
the  sound.  Such  a tremor  of  the  air  near 
the  whistle  might  even  jar  the  fingers,  or 
lips,  or  nose,  as  well  as  the  whole  ear. 
But  it  is  a superficial  view  to  suppose  it 
to  be  the  sound  which  effects  this  result, 
because  the  sound  occurs  simultaneously 
and  is  generated  really  by  the  same  vibra- 
tory motion  which  incidentally  shakes  the 
air  for  a limited  distance  around.  This 
distinction  I have  already  made  in  several 
places  in  the  preceding  argument.  As  an 
example,  the  reader  no  doubt  recollects 
the  exposure  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  mem- 
orable fiasco  on  magazine  explosions  and 
the  effects  of  their “ sound-waves”  in  break- 
ing windows!  (See  page  103  and  on- 
ward.) 

Sound,  proper,  can  only  shake  such 
bodies  as  are  themselves  capable  of  mak- 


ing a musical  tone,  and  whose  tension  at 
the  time  allows  them  to  oscillate  normally, 
if  started,  with  the  same  or  nearly  the  same 
vibrational  number;  or,  in  other  words, 
with  the  same  or  nearly  the  same  number 
of  swings  per  second  that  the  sounding 
body  makes  which  produces  the  exciting 
tone.  The  reader,  I trust,  can  understand 
this. 

I therefore  claim  that  if  the  tympanic 
membrane,  the  ear,  the  nose,  the  lips,  or 
the  fingers,  should  jar  or  tremble  as  the 
apparent  result  of  a loud  sound,  it  is  but 
the  incidental  effect  of  the  vibration  which 
generates  the  tone,  the  same  as  the  air- 
waves themselves  sent  off  by  this  sounding 
body  for  a limited  distance  around  are  but 
the  incidental  effect  of  such  agitation,  and 
not  a part  of  sound-propagation, as  already 
shown  in  several  places.  So  far  from  such 
incidental  shaking  of  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane, if  it  really  occurs,  being  the  means 
by  which  we  hear  sound,  as  all  writers  on 
the  subject  take  for  granted,  it  would 
rather  be  a hindrance  to  our  analyzing  or 
appreciating  the  tone  properly,  if  so  pow- 
erful as  to  actually  jar  this  organ,  just  as 
an  intensely  bright  object  presented  to  the 
eye  would  so  agitate  and  distract  the  retina 
as  to  prevent  the  accurate  examination  of 
its  outline. 

In  opposition  to  this  view,  it  is  claimed 
by  Professor  Helmholtz  that  the  tympanic 
membrane  has  been  distinctly  felt  to  vi- 
brate to  sonorous  pulses,  and  that  beats 
from  two  organ-pipes  slightly  out  of  unison 
have  been  reproduced  by  attaching  a deli- 
cate style  to  the  auditory  bone  (the  colu- 
mella') of  the  common  duck,  the  style  being 
observed  sensibly  to  vibrate  as  the  beats 
struck  the  drum-skin  of  the  duck’s  ear! 
Here,  again,  I am  compelled  to  charge 
these  writers  with  the  most  inexcusable 
superficiality  in  mistaking  the  reactive 
effect  of  the  tone,  through  the  nerves  of 


196 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sensation,  for  the  direct  mechanical  effect 
of  the  sound  upon  this  columella  of  the 
duck.  To  show  the  shallowness  of  this 
reasoning,  let  the  duck  be  killed,  without 
marring  or  deranging  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree the  auditory  apparatus,  leaving  the 
style  connected  as  before  with  the  colu- 
mella, and  then  bring  to  bear  the  organ- 
pipes,  with  their  “beats,”  and  if  the  drum- 
skin,  the  auditory  bone,  and  the  style  re- 
spond as  when  the  duck  was  alive,  I’ll  give 
up  the  argument!  The  explanation  of  all 
such  effects,  as  just  hinted,  lies  in  the 
simple  and  natural  reactive  result  of  sound 
which  first  produces  the  sensation  on  the 
brain  through  the  sensitive  tympanic  mem- 
brane and  auditory  nerve,  and  then  reacts 
in  throbs  corresponding  to  the  beats  of  the 
organ-pipes  on  the  auditory  bone,  and  no 
doubt  to  some  extent  on  all  other  parts  of 
the  duck’s  body ! 

These  great  physicists  ought  to  know 
that  they  can  construct  artificially  a tym- 
panic membrane,  even  more  delicate  and 
of  much  finer  material  than  that  consti- 
tuting the  drum-skin  of  the  duck’s  ear. 
Yet  they  never  think  of  testing  such  a 
membrane,  and  of  that  size  and  rigidity, 
connected  in  the  same  manner  with  an 
artificial  columella,  using  their  beating 
organ-pipes  and  sensitive  style;  but  reason 
like  children,  that  because  they  see  such 
effects  produced  in  a live  duck , having  a 
reactive  nervous  system, it  must  necessarily 
be  the  gross  mechanical  effect  of  objective 
air-waves  dashed  against  the  drum-skin, 
instead  of  the  subjective  reaction  of  sense- 
shocks  communicated  from  the  brain 
through  the  nerves  back  upon  these  audi- 
tory organs! 

This  case  of  the  duck  and  the  vibrating 
style  is  similar  to  that  recorded  of  the  my  sis 
or  the  opossum-shrimp,  whose  so-called 
auditory  hairs  were  experimented  on  by 
V.  Hensen,  as  related  by  Helmholtz  in  his 


Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  225.  Hensen  found, 
on  sounding  a keyed  horn,  that  certain 
hairs  of  this  crustacean  would  quiver  in 
response  to  tones  of  a determinate  pitch, 
while  other  hairs  would  vibrate  to  other 
tones.  Hence,  the  profound  (!)  scientific 
inference  that  these  hairs,  without  the 
least  regard  to  size  or  length,  were  tuned 
in  unison  to  certain  pitches  of  tone,  and 
vibrated  sympathetically  as  such  notes 
were  struck  on  the  horn ! 

One  would  have  thought  that  such  care- 
ful investigators  would  have  been  struck 
with  the  acoustical  anomaly  of  hairs  vi- 
brating to  certain  tones  without  corre- 
sponding difference  in  size,  length,  or  ten- 
sion, and  would  have  been  led  to  inquire 
why  this  result  was  never  witnessed  in  the 
sympathetic  vibration  of  strings,  rods,  or 
any  other  kinds  of  musical  device.  A tyro 
in  the  investigation  of  acoustical  phenom- 
ena would  have  made  this  his  first  inquiry, 
and  have  stopped  right  there  till  the  mys- 
tery was  solved. 

But  neither  Hensen  nor  Helmholtz  ap- 
peared to  be  capable  of  noticing  this  bot- 
tom fact,  or  of  looking  below  the  surface 
idea  of  the  mere  motion  of  the  hairs  as 
certain  pitches  of  tone  occurred,  and  thus 
grasping  the  beautiful  thought  that  these 
tones,  after  reaching  the  ganglionic  center 
of  this  animal,  and  being  there  translated 
into  sounds  of  different  pitch,  reacted 
through  its  nervous  system  upon  these 
auditory  hairs, whose  roots  connected  with 
these  nerves, — certain  nerves  conducting 
tones  of  one  pitch,  while  other  nerves 
leading  to  other  auditory  hairs,  without 
any  regard  to  their  length  or  size,  con- 
ducting tones  of  a different  pitch!  The 
possibility  of  such  a thing  as  reactive 
effect  through  the  sense-nerves  being  pro- 
duced, and  thereby  causing  certain  parts 
or  organs  to  quiver,  never  entered  the 
minds  of  these  learned  investigators.  They 


Ciur.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound . 


197 


superficially  observed  certain  auditory 
hairs  of  this  shrimp  to  vibrate  as  certain 
sounds  were  produced  on  the  horn,  and 
at  once  jumped  to  the  conclusion,  like 
children,  that  these  hairs  must  be  tuned 
in  unison  with  that  particular  tone,  and 
therefore  vibrated  as  the  effect  of  that 
particular  system  of  sonorous  waves  dash- 
ing against  it. 

But  if  Helmholtz  and  Hensen  wish  to 
satisfy  themselves  of  their  mistake,  and  to 
become  convinced  that  these  results  can 
only  be  explained,  as  here  suggested,  by 
the  reactive  effects  of  these  tones  through 
the  nervous  system  of  the  shrimp,  let 
them  first  kill  this  animal,  as  suggested  in 
the  case  of  the  duck,  and  they  may  then 
blow  their  horn  till  the  crack  of  doom, and 
they  will  find,  to  their  individual  improve- 
ment, that,  so  far  from  these  auditory  hairs 
being  tuned  in  unison,  they  will  utterly  fail 
to  respond,  demonstrating  that  their  tremor 
was  the  effect  of  subjective  reaction,  and 
that  they  did  not  move  as  the  objective 
result  of  hypothetic  sound-waves. 

In  like  manner,  if  any  part  of  our  own 
ear  is  felt  to  vibrate  by  sounds  of  a certain 
pitch,  we  may  be  sure  that  it  is  subjective, 
as  the  reactive  effect  of  the  tone  through 
the  sense-nerves  leading  from  the  brain 
to  the  affected  part,  and  not  the  objective 
result  of  external  air-waves  which  have 
no  existence  in  the  propagation  of  sound 
except  in  the  superficial  imagination  of 
physicists. 

Analogous  to  this  view  of  reaction  in 
sound,  it  is  well  known  that  powerfully 
pungent  odor,  when  it  has  produced  upon 
the  brain  the  sensation  of  smell,  acting 
through  the  sensitive  membrane  of  the 
nose  and  the  olfactory  nerve,  may  so  react 
through  the  nervous  system  as  to  not  only 
cause  a shiver  in  certain  parts  and  organs 
and  force  water  out  of  the  eyes,  but  may 
easily  produce  a reactive  shock  which 


will  cause  the  whole  physical  organism  to 
shudder!  Yet  what  physiologist  or  phys- 
icist would  be  so  superficially  innocent  of 
all  logic  and  reason  as  to  conclude  that  it 
was  the  mechanical  and  objective  force  of 
the  imponderable  granules  of  odor  striking 
against  the  membrane  of  the  nose  which 
jarred  the  whole  body  and  condensed  the 
fluids  of  the  system  into  tears?  How  sim- 
ply and  beautifully  could  the  vibratory 
sensation  felt  in  the  tympanic  membrane 
be  accounted  for  if  physicists  would  reason 
about  sound  and  its  direct  and  reactive 
effects  in  the  same  manner  as  they  would 
be  compelled  to  reason  about  the  action 
of  the  somewhat  analogous  corpuscles  of 
odor!  As  well  might  they  descant  learn- 
edly about  the  nasal  membrane  and  the 
organs  of  olfaction  being  thrown  into  vi- 
bratory motion  by  fragrant  pulses  or  odor- 
iferous waves  issuing  from  a lump  of  am- 
monia, ignoring  the  substantial  corpuscles 
of  this  perfume,  as  to  continually  harp 
upon  the  same  kind  of  philosophical  non- 
sense about  sound  and  the  effects  of  the 
superposition  of  supposititious  air-waves 
upon  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear! 

It  has  already  been  shown,  a few  pages 
back,  by  the  most  demonstrative  mechan- 
ical and  mathematical  argument  within 
human  imagination,  that  the  tympanic 
membrane  can  not  vibrate  in  response  to 
sound,  since  if  it  did  so  oscillate  or  was 
so  intended  to  oscillate  as  the  natural 
mode  of  hearing  tone,  it  necessarily  in- 
volves the  shaking  of  two  thousand  million 
tons  of  such  ponderable  matter  by  the 
stridulation  of  an  insect  not  capable  of 
stirring  an  ounce  by  exerting  all  its  strength. 
No  physicist  can  reply  to  that  argument 
against  tympanic  vibration,  and  I will 
venture  to  say  that  no  one  will  ever  at- 
tempt it,  notwithstanding  it  saps  the  very 
foundation  of  the  wave-theory,  as  the  most 
superficial  reader  must  see. 


1 98 


7'he  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


But  even  if  it  were  conceded  that  this 
membrane  can  actually  vibrate  sympa- 
thetically as  the  mode  of  hearing  sound, 
or  as  the  means  by  which  sonorous  im- 
pressions are  conveyed  to  the  auditory 
nerve,  still,  as  I have  already  shown,  this 
would  absolutely  limit  us  to  the  hearing 
of  one  single  pitch  of  tone  distinctly , while 
we  might  hear  faintly  the  slight  variation 
from  this  vibrational  number, — not  to  ex- 
ceed a semitone  either  way  from  absolute 
unison.  I recently  promised  to  revert  to 
this  important  matter,  so  vitally  impor- 
tant to  the  wave-theory  if  true,  but  if  false 
so  fatally  destructive  to  the  reasoning  of 
physicists  on  the  structure  of  the  ear,  and 
the  true  mode  of  hearing  tone;  for, if  tym- 
panic vibration  breaks  down,  there  is  not 
an  unbiassed  physicist  living  who  would 
not  be  compelled  to  renounce  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  since  of  what  use  would 
be  air-waves  in  the  propagation  of  sound 
if  the  tympanic  membrane  can  not  respond 
to  them? 

As  already  intimated,  and  as  is  well 
known  even  to  the  unscientific,  a string, 
tuning-fork,  reed,  pipe,  or  membrane,  how- 
ever tuned,  will  not  be  thrown  into  appre- 
ciable vibratory  motion  in  sympathetic 
response  to  the  tone  of  another  instrument 
unless  it  is  tuned  in  unison  or  very  nearly 
in  unison  with  such  exciting  tone;  or, 
in  other  words,  unless  its  own  vibra- 
tional tension  and  number  correspond  to 
the  number  of  periodic  pulses  generated 
by  such  actuating  instrument.  Hence,  if 
the  tympanic  membrane  were  intended  to 
vibrate  sympathetically  at  all  as  the  mode 
of  conveying  sound  to  the  auditory  nerve, 
as  physicists  are  necessarily  obliged  to 
claim,  it  could  not  sensibly  stir,  as  obser- 
vation proves,  unless  its  own  vibrational 
number,  or  normal  tendency  to  oscillate 
when  put  into  motion,  corresponded  to 
the  vibrational  periodicity  of  the  exciting 


tone.  A sounding  instrument,  such  as  fork 
or  string,  tuned  to  any  other  pitch  save 
that  of  unison  with  the  vibrational  number 
of  this  membrane,  or  very  near  it,  could 
not,  of  course,  stir  the  drum-skin  of  the 
ear;  and  hence,  if  there  is  any  truth  in 
the  wave-theory,  such  a tone  would  not  be 
heard  at  all,  since  this  vibratory  motion  of 
the  drum-skin  is  the  only  mode  of  hearing 
sound!  Can  any  inductive  mode  of  rea- 
soning on  any  question  of  science  be  more 
conclusively  certain  than  this? 

It  is  true  that  Professor  Helmholtz  part- 
ly foresees  this  difficulty,  and  to  this  extent 
tries  to  guard  against  it;  but  he  evidently 
does  not  fully  realize  its  fatal  consequences 
to  the  wave-hypothesis,  as  I will  clearly 
show.  The  infinite  impossibility  of  this 
diminutive  membrane,  but  a third  of  an 
inch  in  diameter,  vibrating  in  sympathetic 
synchronism  with  tones  of  all  possible 
vibrational  numbers  or  degrees  of  pitch 
seemed  to  flash  momentarily  across  his 
thoughts,  like  the  vision  of  some  miracle 
of  which,  though  we  might  wish  an  expla- 
nation, we  must  content  ourselves  to  re- 
main in  the  dark.  He  goes  so  far,  how- 
ever, in  trying  to  partially  provide  for  it, 
as  to  tell  the  reader  that  an  instrument 
like  a membrane  which  comes  quickly  to 
rest  after  being  thrown  into  vibration  does 
not  require  such  accurate  unison  in  the 
exciting  tone  as  would  a tuning-fork, 
which,  when  once  excited,  vibrates  a long 
time!  This  is  true  enough  . but  still, how 
little  does  it  help  this  terrible  difficulty! 
For,  while  the  fork,  owing  to  this  enduring 
oscillation  when  started,  requires  the  most 
exact  unison  to  sympathetically  excite  it, 
the  membrane  requires  very  nearly  unison, 
or  not  to  exceed  the  variation  of  a semi- 
tone either  way,  as  he  is  himself  forced  to 
admit  in  the  most  explicit  language,  when 
speaking  of  the  “parts  of  the  ear,”  as  fol- 
lows : — 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound . 


r99 


"The  intensity  of  sympathetic  vibration  with  a 
semitone  difference  of  pitch  is  only  one  tenth  of  zvhat 
it  is  for  a complete  unison.  . . . Hence,  when  we 
hereafter  speak  of  individual  parts  of  the  ear  vibra- 
ting sympathetically  with  a determinate  tone , we 
mean  that  they,  are  set  into  strongest  motion  by  that 
tone  [unison],  but  are  also  set  into  vibration  less 
strongly  by  tones  of  nearly  the  same  pitch , <l'W“  and 
that  this  sympathetic  vibration  is  still  sensible  for 
the  interval  of  a semitone.” — Sensations  of  Tone , 
p.  216. 

Frankly  and  unmistakably,  then,  let  it 
be  understood,  this  highest  living  authority 
on  sound  admits  that  “parts  of  the  ear” 
can  not  sensibly  vibrate  by  sympathy  more 
than  a “semitone”  out  of  unison  with  any 
“determinate  tone”!  How,  then,  in  the 
name  of  acoustics,  is  the  “drum-skin  of 
the  ear”  to  sympathetically  vibrate  to  any 
“determinate  tone”  when  it  is  out  of  uni- 
son with  the  vibrational  number  of  this 
membrane  more  than  the  “interval  of  a 
semitone”?  He  clearly  admits  such  sym- 
pathetic vibration  impossible,  unless  within 
this  circumscribed  limit;  and  hence, if  the 
wave-theory  be  true,  that  the  tympanic 
membrane  is  intended  to  sympathetically 
vibrate  at  all  in  response  to  sound  as  the 
mode  of  transmitting  tone  to  the  auditory 
nerve,  as  all  authorities  tell  us,  then  let  it 
be  proclaimed  to  the  scientific  world  that 
this  leading  sound  expert  and  investigator 
has  shown  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  hu- 
man ear  to  recognize  any  tone  or  hear  any 
sound  save  that  of  one  determinate  pitch, 
with  a faint  but  rapidly  diminishing  margin 
of  a“semitone”either  way  from  the  proper 
vibrational  number  of  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane ! 

Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  this  univer- 
sally accepted  scientific  theory, expounded 
by  its  ablest  advocates,  first  teaches  that 
the  tympanic  membrane,  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal parts  of  the  ear,  vibrates  in  response 
to  all'  audible  sounds  of  the  musical  scale, 
including  every  degree  of  pitch,  bending 
“once  in  and  once  out"  as  each  sound-wave 


strikes  it  as  the  only  means  of  hearing 
tone,  and  then  that  the  same  theory  in  the 
hands  of  the  same  highest  living  authori- 
ties turns  right  round  and  teaches  exactly 
the  opposite,  as  just  quoted,  namely,  that 
the  “ individual  parts  of  the  ear ” which  re- 
spond by  “sympathetic  vibration ’’can  only 
vibrate  to  a sound  when  within  “the  inter- 
val of  a semitone”  of  “cotnplete  unison "? 
The  world  is  challenged  to  find  any  theory 
in  the  annals  of  scientific  investigation, 
ancient  or  modern,  not  excepting  the  Pto- 
lemaic system  of  astronomy,  containing  as 
many  point-blank  and  self-stultifying  con- 
tradictions as  have  been  pointed  out  in 
this  wave-theory  of  sound  during  the  pre- 
ceding argument.  Yet  the  exposure  of  its 
multitudinous  absurdities  and  self-contra- 
dictions has  hardly  commenced.  I ask  the 
intelligent  reader,  in  view  of  the  above,  if 
it  is  possible  for  the  wave-theory  to  remain 
unshattered  as  science  while  receiving 
such  staggering  blows? 

But  I have  evidence  from  this  same  au- 
thority even  more  definite  than  this,  over- 
throwing tympanic  vibration  as  Nature’s 
plan  of  transmitting  tone  to  the  auditory 
nerve.  When  discussing  another  phase  of 
the  sound-theory  he  naturally  forgets  the 
absolute  necessity  of  this  membrane  of  the 
ear  vibrating  sympathetically  to  tones  of 
every  degree  of  pitch  throughout  the  mu- 
sical scale,  and  deliberately  teaches  that  a 
stretched  membrane  will  respond  only  to 
a tone  which  happens  to  be  in  “ unison ” 
with  it,  thus  confirming  my  argument  that 
the  drum-skin  of  the  ear  is  necessarily 
confined  to  one  pitch  of  tone  if  it  vibrates 
at  all. 

Thus,  when  instructing  the  reader  how 
to  detect  combinational  or  resultant  tones , 
which,  as  already  intimated,  are  low  sec- 
ondary sounds  generated  by  the  two  tones 
of  a chord,  he  shows  that  a stretched  mem- 
brane tuned  in  unison  with  such  resultant 


200 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


tone  will  instantly  be  thrown  into  sympa- 
thetic vibration  whenever  the  two  notes  of 
the  chord  are  sounded,  thus  proving  the 
presence  of  this  resultant  tone  in  the  air, 
even  though  it  may  be  so  feeble  as  not 
to  be  distinctly  audible,  and  thus  demon- 
strating that  these  resultant  tones  are  not 
the  effect  of  the  imagination,  as  some  have 
supposed, — while  he  goes  further,  and  as- 
sures us  that  this  membrane,  thus  tuned 
in  unison  with  such  resultant  tone,®'///  not 
stir  when  either  of  the  two  generating  tones 
of  the  chord  is  sounded  separately,  simply 
because  neither  of  such  primary  tones  is 
in  “unison”  with  it!  Speaking  of  these 
combinational  tones,  his  words  are: — 

“Their  objective  existence  in  the  mass  of  air 
can  be  proved  by  vibrating  membranes  tuned  to  be  in 
unison  with  the  combinational  tones.  Such  mem- 
branes are  set  in  sympathetic  vibration  immediately 
upon  both  generating  tones  being  sounded  simulta- 
neously, but  remain  at  rest  if  only  one  or  other  of 
them  is  sounded — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  235. 

Here,  then,  he  himself  admits  that 
stretched  “ membranes"  will  not  vibrate 
sympathetically  except  in  response  to 
“unison”  tones!  How,  then,  is  the  tym- 
panic membrane  to  vibrate  to  any  except 
one  single  pitch  of  tone,  and  that  tone  the 
“unison”  to  its  own  vibrational  number? 

I could  extend  the  annihilating  self- 
contradictions  of  this  eminent  authority 
ad  libitum,  showing  that  whenever  he  is 
not  treating  directly  on  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane or  some  other  part  of  the  ear,  and 
the  absolute  necessity  of  it  vibrating  in 
sympathy  to  all  degrees  of  pitch,  he  inva- 
riably takes  the  common-sense  view  of  the 
matter,  and  the  view  which  even  a school- 
boy knows  to  be  the  correct  one,  namely, 
that  no  instrument  can  be  thrown  into 
sympathetic  vibration  by  the  tone  of  an- 
other unless  the  two  are  in  unison  or  very 
near  it.  Take  one  other  example,  where 
he  is  speaking  of  a singer  having  the  power 
of  throwing  a piano-string  into  sympathetic 


vibration  by  directing  the  voice  against  it. 
His  words  are  : — 

“The  more  exactly  the  singer  hits  the  pitch  of  the 
string,  the  more  strongly  it  vibrates.  A very  little 
deviation  from  the  exact  pilch  fails  in  exciting  sym- 
pathetic vibration.” — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  61. 

How  sensible  this  great  physicist  can  be 
when  he  confines  himself  to  scientific  facts, 
and  is  guided  by  the  unfailing  laws  of 
acoustics?  But  how  absurdly  childish  he 
becomes  the  moment  he  branches  off  into 
the  self-contradictory  superficialities  of  the 
wave-theory ! Can  any  one  imagine  a more 
abrupt  transition  from  sound  reason  to  in- 
sipid nonsense,  than,  after  reading  the 
above,  to  turn  back  to  pages  175  and  176 
and  read  what  this  same  author  and  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  say  about  the  tympanic 
membrane  vibrating  sympathetically  to 
tones  of  every  degree  of  pitch,  bending 
“once  in  and  once  out”  as  each  sound- 
wave strikes  it,  from  the  lowest  note  of  the 
church-organ  to  the  highest  tone  of  the 
piccolo-flute? 

The  fact  is,  the  tympanic  membrane,  if 
it  vibrates  at  all  in  sympathetic  response 
to  tone,  must  act  as  all  other  membranes 
act,  and  that  is,  respond  to  only  one  de- 
terminate pitch — its  own  vibrational  num- 
ber; and  Professor  Helmholtz  knows  it 
whenever  he  steps  outside  of  the  wave- 
theory,  and  is  thus  momentarily  freed  from 
the  spell  of  its  blinding  influence.  But 
this  absurd  philosophy  having  taught  him 
from  his  youth  up  that  we  can  only  hear 
sound  by  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  tym- 
panic membrane,  he  has  not  even  in  his 
ripe  manhood  the  power  to  stamp  down, 
crush  out,  and  break  away  from  an  erro- 
neous hypothesis  which  contradicts  his 
very  senses  and  upsets  the  foundation-laws 
of  acoustics  and  mechanics,  but  goes  on 
advocating  what  he  must  know,  unless 
mentally  blinded,  to  be  infinitely  impos- 
sible in  the  nature  of  things. 


Chav.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


201 


Now,  as  everybody  knows  that  a stretched 
membrane  can  only  respond  to  one  deter- 
minate pitch  of  tone,  or,  at  most,  can  not 
vary  from  it  even  faintly  more  than  a semi- 
tone either  way,  and  as  we  all  know  that 
we  hear  tones  of  every  degree  of  pitch 
throughout  the  musical  scale,  and  all  the 
separate  degrees  with  equal  facility,  it  be- 
comes clearly  demonstrative,  as  must  be 
evident  to  the  commonest  intelligence  of 
the  unscientific  reader,  that  the  hearing 
of  sound  is  independent  of  any  vibratory 
motion  whatever  of  this  membrane.  Is 
not  this  as  acoustically  certain  as  that  we 
hear  sound  at  all?  Hence,  the  wave- 
hypothesis,  depending  as  it  does  on  tym- 
panic vibration  for  its  existence,  neces- 
sarily and  absolutely  breaks  down. 

I therefore  repeat  my  deliberate  convic- 
tion, which  I believe  the  judgment  of  the 
scientific  world,  upon  re-investigation,  will 
indorse,  that  this  assumption  of  tympanic 
vibration  as  the  means  by  which  the  sen- 
sations of  tone  are  transmitted  to  the  au- 
ditory nerve,  lying  as  it  does  at  the  foun- 
dation of  the  wave-theory,  is  an  error  of 
so  grave  and  glaring  a character  that  its 
exposure  must  lead  to  the  immediate  revo- 
lution of  the  current  hypothesis  of  sound; 
and  that  if  physicists,  who  have  already 
committed  themselves  by  writing  elaborate 
works  on  the  subject,  shall  feel  indisposed 
to  undo  what  they  have  accomplished  with 
so  much  labor  and  effort,  the  work  must 
be  relegated  to  other  investigators  in  time, 
equally  competent,  who  will  arise  and  take 
up  the  imperfect  chain  of  argument  intro- 
duced in  this  monograph,  and  carry  it  out 
to  a systematized  analysis  of  the  whole 
question. 

I only  regret  that  the  discussion  has  un- 
avoidably forced  me  into  such  direct  an- 
tagonism to  Professor  Helmholtz,  and 
compelled  me,  though  reluctantly,  to  ex- 
pose his  utterly  inexcusable  contradictions 


and  mistakes  in  his  efforts  to  harmonize 
what  is  intrinsically  incongruous,  for  other- 
wise I might  have  looked  upon  his  great 
analytical  ability  to  aid  the  new  hypothesis, 
and  thus  assist  in  revolutionizing  the  the- 
ory of  sound  as  no  living  physicist,  per- 
haps, would  have  been  so  capable  of  doing, 
had  the  matter  been  brought  to  his  atten- 
tion under  less  embittering  circumstances. 

But  this  vital  doctrine  of  tympanic  vi- 
bration has  become  too  important  a ques- 
tion, and  the  very  life  of  the  wave-theory 
of  sound  is  too  intimately  involved  in  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  this  single  proposition, 
to  allow  the  discussion  of  it  to  drop  quite 
yet.  I propose  to  show  still  further  the 
inexplicable  involvement  of  Professor 
Helmholtz  in  his  almost  insane  efforts  to 
harmonize  so  utterly  false  a theory  as  that 
of  wave-motion  with  so  fundamentally 
erroneous  and  self-contradictory  a prin- 
ciple as  tympanic  vibration. 

He  announces  an  important  law,  which 
turns  out  to  be  as  amusing  as  it  is  absurd. 
He  admits,  in  the  first  place,  as  he  is  neces- 
sarily compelled  to  do,  that  the  tympanic 
membrane,  like  all  other  membranes,  has 
a normal  “vibrational  number’’ or  periodic 
swing  of  its  own,  corresponding  to  its  size, 
weight,  and  tension,  of  which  the  most  or- 
dinary student  of  science  is  well  aware; 
and  while  acknowledging,  as  just  quoted, 
that  a membrane  can  only  vibrate  sympa- 
thetically to  a tone  which  happens  to  be 
in  “unison”  to  its  own  normal  rate  of  os- 
cillation, or,  at  farthest,  within  a semitone 
of  unison,  yet  he  seems  wildly  to  insist,  in 
his  apparent  confusion,  that  this  membrane 
of  the  ear, unlike  any  other  membrane, and 
without  pretending  to  any  special  reason 
for  it  differing  from  other  membranes  in 
this  regard,  will  vibrate  in  response  to  every 
audible  pitch  of  tone, whether  in  unison  or  not, 
simply  because  the  wave-theory  requires 
it  so  to  vibrate,  and  because  it  would  be 


202 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


utterly  disastrous  to  the  whole  hypothesis 
if  it  did  not  so  vibrate ! Is  there  any  other 
reason,  real  or  imaginary,  why  this  one 
membrane  should  differ  thus  from  all 
others-  If  there  is,  this  great  investigator 
does  not  pretend  to  point  it  out,  but  ap- 
pears to  assume  it  on  general  principles. 
He  lays  down  this  remarkable  general 
law : — 

“ \n  elastic  body  set  into  sympathetic  vibration 
by  any  tone  [whether  in  unison  or  not],  vibrates 
sympathetically  in  the  pitch  or  with  the  vibrational 
number  of  the  exciting  tone;  but  as  soon  as  the  ex- 
citing tone  ceases,  it  goes  on  sounding  in  the  pitch 
or  vibrational  number  of  its  own  proper  tone." — 
Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  215. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  understanding 
the  drift  of  this  law.  It  necessarily  assumes 
that  a membrane  or  other  elastic  body  not 
only  has  a vibrational  number  of  its  own, 
but  will  vibrate  sympathetically  to  exciting 
sounds  not  in  unison  with  this  “vibrational 
number  of  its  own  proper  tone"  so  long  as 
the  “exciting  tone’’  continues;  but  that 
the  moment  the  actuating  tone  ceases  the 
membrane  drops  that  coerced  rate  of 
oscillation,  and  “goes  on  sounding  in  the 
pitch  or  vibrational  number  of  its  own 
proper  tone"! 

Now,  this  law  must  evidently  apply  to 
the  drum-skin  of  the  ear, for  reasons  which 
I will  give.  Professor  Helmholtz  himself 
distinctly  teaches,  as  already  quoted, that — 

* A periodically  oscillating  sonorous  body  pro- 
duces a similar  periodical  motion,  first  in  the  mass 
of  the  air  and  then  in  the  drum  of  our  ear,  and  the 
■beriod  of  these  vibrations  must  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  vibrations  of  the  sounding  body .” — Sensations 
of  Tone,  p.  16. 

Thus,  the  “drum  of  our  ear”  must  oscil- 
late with  the  same  period  “as  that  of  the 
vibrations  of  the  sounding  body, ’’whatever 
may  be  its  pitch  of  tone  or  number  of  vi- 
brations per  second, — whether  it  is  in  uni- 
son with  the  “vibrational  number”  of  the 
tympanic  membrane,  or  a thousand  vibra- 


tions a second  out  of  unison!  The  drum- 
skin  of  the  ear, as  this  writer  must  include, 
“ vibrates  sympathetically  in  the  pitch  or  with 
the  vibrational  number  of  the  exciting  tone ; 
but  as  soon  as  the  exciting  tone  ceases  it  goes 
on  sounding  in  the  pitch  or  vibrational  num- 
ber of  its  own  proper  tone" ! That  is,  if  it 
“goes  on  sounding” at  all;  and,  as  a proof 
that  the  tympanic  membrane  is  thus  neces- 
sarily included,  Professor  Tyndall  re- 
enforces Professor  Helmholtz  by  distinctly 
teaching  as  follows: — 

“Every  wave  generated  by  such  vibrations  [with- 
out reference  to  pitch]  bends  the  tympanic  membrane 
once  in  and  once  out." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  69. 

And  to  show  that  this  membrane  “goes 
on  sounding,”  bending  in  and  out,  after 
the  exciting  tone  ceases,  this  same  lecturer 
says: — 

“Imagine  the  first  of  a series  of  pulses  which 
follow  each  other  at  regular  intervals,  impinging 
upon  the  tympanic  membrane.  It  is  shaken  by  the 
shock ; and  a body  once  shaken  can  not  come  in- 
stantaneously to  rest.  ” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  49. 

Hence, as  Professor  Helmholtz  says,  “it 
goes  on  sounding  in  the  pitch  or  vibrational 
number  of  its  own  proper  tone,”  because 
it  can  not,  of  course,  vibrate  out  of  its 
normal  or  unison  rate,  if  at  all,  any  longer 
than  coerced;  and,  as  it  can  not  come  im- 
mediately to  rest  after  the  exciting  tone 
ceases,  it  must  come  under  this  extraor- 
dinary law  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  and 
go  on  sounding  in  its  own  normal  or  “vi- 
brational number.” 

We  will  now  look  at  some  of  the  extra- 
ordinary and  amusing  results  of  this  law, 
as  applied  to  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear. 
Let  us  suppose  a certain  tympanic  mem- 
brane to  be  of  such  size,  weight,  and  ten- 
sion, as  to  make  “its  own  proper  tone”  or 
“vibrational  number”  that  of  A,  having 
440  pendular  swings  per  second ; that  is 
to  say,  if  the  drum-skin  should  be  thrown 
into  vibratory  motion,  and  left  to  swing 


Ciiap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


203 


normally,  it  would  continue  to  vibrate  at 
that  isochronous  rate  till  it  would  settle 
to  rest. 

According  to  the  teaching  of  these  phys- 
icists,— which  we  are,  of  course,  expected 
to  believe  as  science, — if  an  organ-pipe, 
representing  the  highest  note  but  one  in  a 
seven-octave  pianoforte  (G,  with  3,400  vi- 
brations in  a second,)  should  be  sounded, 
this  tympanic  membrane  is  of  necessity  co- 
erced from  its  normal  rate  of  440  oscilla- 
tions, and  made  to  assume  the  vibrational 
number  of  this  high  G,  and  bend  “once 
in  and  once  out”  for  each  of  these  3,400 
waves  per  second,  so  long  as  this  “exciting 
tone”  continues,  though  its  own  pitch  or 
“vibrational  number”  is  only  about  one 
eighth  as  much.  But  after  a little  this 
high  G ceases  to  sound,  and  instead  of  the 
drum-skin  of  the  ear  doing  likewise,  we 
are  assured  by  these  highest  living  author- 
ities that  it  “can  not  come  instantaneously 
to  rest,”  but  ' goes  on  sounding  in  the 
pitch  or  vibrational  number  of  its  own 
proper  tone,”  or  at  the  old  rate  of  440  vi- 
brations a second ! 

Contrary,  then,  to  the  observation  and 
scientific  experience  of  the  whole  world, 
it  is  first  coerced  into  an  abnormal  rate  of 
swing  nearly  3,000  oscillations  out  of  tune, 
and  that,  too,  remember,  by  “ sympathetic 
vibration”;  and  then, contrary  to  all  known 
mechanical  or  acoustical  laws,  it  drops  that 
motion  and  takes  up  a new ’rate  of  440  vi- 
brations a second  without  any  known  or 
exciting  cause  whatever  to  superinduce  it, 
since  we  are  told  that  “as  soon  as  the  ex- 
citing tone  ceases  it  goes  on  sounding  in  the 
pitch  or  the  vibrational  number  of  its  own 
proper  tone”! 

I deny  both  these  positions  as  prepos- 
terously absurd,  and  contrary  to  both  sci- 
ence and  reason.  No  membrane,  however 
tuned  or  tensioned,  can  be  excited  sympa- 
thetically by  any  tone,  as  Professor  Helm- 


holtz has  already  admitted,  not  in  unison 
or  very  nearly  in  unison  with  its  own  “vi- 
brational number”;  and  if  so  excited  into 
an  abnormal  rate  by  a discordant  sound, 
it  could  not  change  to  a new  rate  without 
a new  exciting  impulse. 

But  the  more  startling  consequences 
growing  out  of  the  doctrine  here  inculcated 
have  not  yet  been  reached.  If  this  law 
governing  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  a 
stretched  membrane  or  other  elastic  body 
— especially  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear — is 
correct,  as  here  laid  down  by  these  high 
authorities,  we  have  only  to  assume,  as  al- 
ready intimated,  any  particular  pitch  of 
sound  as  the  one  corresponding  to  the 
normal  “vibrational  number”  of  the  tym- 
panic membrane,  in  order  to  at  once  see 
the  beautiful  working  of  the  principle 
enunciated;  since  it  is  evident, as  admitted 
by  Professor  Helmholtz, that  the  drum-skin, 
as  well  as  every  other  membrane,  must  have 
some  definite  pitch  as  the“vibrational  number 
of  its  ow7i  proper  tone!' 

We  have  already  supposed  the  pitch  of 
our  own  tympanic  membrane,  for  example, 
to  be  A,  or  the  same  pitch  as  that  of  the 
second  string  of  the  violin,  having  440  vi- 
brations to  the  second.  Now,  it  is  mani- 
fest, as  just  seen,  and  as  I wish  again  to 
impress  upon  the  reader,  that  if  D should 
be  sounded,  having  594  vibrations  to  the 
second,  this  drum-skin  will  be  instantly 
forced  out  of  “its  own  proper  tone”  and 
compelled  to  vibrate  sympathetically  with 
D so  long  as  it  sounds,  according  to  this 
remarkable  law  and  the  necessities  of  the 
wave-theory;  but  the  moment  the  sound 
of  D ceases,  the  “drum-skin”  drops  this 
abnormal  rate  of  594  vibrations  to  the 
second,  and  relapses  back  into  “its  own 
proper  tone,”  and  “goes  on  sounding”' 
Of  course, according  to  this  admirable  law 
of  Professor  Helmholtz,  confirmed  by  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall,  the  “elastic  body  set  into 


204 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sympathetic  vibration"  by  the  sound  of  D 
does  not  cease  sounding  or  “come  instan- 
taneously to  rest”  when  D ceases,  though 
it  ceases  sounding  in  the  pitch  of  D,  or 
with  594  vibrations  to  the  second,  but 
“goes  on  sounding”  in  A,  with  440  vibra- 
tions, for  “as  soon  as  the  exciting  tone 
ceases  it  goes  on  sounding  in  the  pitch 
or  vibrational  number  of  its  own  proper 
tone”! 

Thus,  inevitably,  if  these  writers  are  re- 
ceived as  authority, — and  they  confessedly 
stand  the  highest  on  this  subject, — it  fol- 
lows that  on  the  cessation  of  every  sound 
we  hear,  either  above  or  below  A,  the  ear 
instantly  reverts  to  “its  own  proper  tone,” 
and  “goes  on  sounding”  in  A!  Hence,  A 
must  be  sounding  in  my  ear  all  the  time 
as  a perpetual  monotone  while  an  orchestra 
is  playing,  filling  up  every  interval  which 
occurs  in  any  piece  of  music  I hear.  No 
matter  what  may  be  the  pitch  or  the  vibra- 
tional number  of  the  exciting  tones,  if  there 
is  not  a single  A sounded  by  the  entire 
orchestra,  the  tympanic  membrane  must 
instantly  jump  to  the  tones  they  produce 
or  fall  to  them  by  “sympathetic  (!)  vibra- 
tion,” and  continue  to  oscillate  at  that 
abnormal  rate  per  second  till  such  “ex- 
citing tone  ceases,”  when,  as  before  ob- 
served, it  falls  back  or  leaps  back,  as  the 
case  may  be,  to  “the  pitch  or  vibrational 
number  of  its  own  proper  tone,”  and  “goes 
on  sounding”! 

Thus,  while  the  drum-skin  “can  not 
come  instantaneously  to  rest,”  but  '‘goes 
on  sounding”  A,  at  440  vibrations  a sec- 
ond or  ‘ its  own  proper  tone,”  these  ac- 
curate scientists  and  greatest  living  au- 
thorities on  sound  tell  us  if  some  one  in 
the  orchestra  should  strike  the  high  D of 
the  piccolo- flute,  with  4,752  vibrations  in 
a second,  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear  tempo- 
rarily ceases  sounding  A,  on  which  it  is 
vibrating  when  not  coerced,  and  leaps  a 


distance  of  4,312  oscillations  a second  out 
of  unison  or  away  from  sympathy,  and  con- 
tinues to  keep  up  this  rapid,  abnormal, 
coerced  movement,  by  “sympathetic  vibra- 
tion,” so  long  as  the  piccolo-flute  sounds 
that  note!  Or,  if  the  low  E of  the  double 
bass  should  happen  to  be  struck,  with  40 
vibrations  to  the  second,  the  tympanic 
membrane  (which  is  now  supposed  to  be 
filling  up  the  interval,  after  dropping  from 
the  high  D of  the  piccolo-flute,  by  sound- 
ing A,  “its  own  proper  tone,”)  is  instantly 
forced  down  to  the  “vibrational  number” 
of  this  new  “exciting  tone,”  and  is  thus 
compelled  to  swing  at  this  slow  rate  of  40 
oscillations  a second  by  "sympathetic  vibra- 
tion,” or  just  400  swings  a second  out  of 
tune  or  away  from  sympathy! 

The  result  is, in  listening  to  an  orchestra 
of  fifty  pieces,  we  not  only  hear  A all  the 
time,  filling  up  all  the  intervals  between 
the  countless  myriads  of  notes  of  various 
degrees  of  pitch,  but  we  hear  fifty  A’s  at 
one  time,  making  each  instrument  appear 
to  sound  in  our  ear  practically  like  a de- 
moralized hurdy-gurdy,  and  converting 
the  orchestra  into  an  enormous  band  of 
Scotch  bagpipes,  with  their  everlasting 
droning  and  monotonous  A continually 
ringing  its  changes  upon  our  tympanic 
drum-skin ! 

But  the  foregoing  is  not  all  there  is  in 
this  lucid  principle  which  controls  the 
“sympathetic  vibration” of  this  membrane 
of  the  ear,  as  announced  by  these  eminent 
physicists.  It  is  well  known  that  a musical 
instrument,  when  re-enforced  by  the  sym- 
pathetic resonance  of  another  sounding 
body  which  vibrates  in  unison,  is  louder 
than  it  would  be  if  not  so  re-enforced, — 
while  the  unison  instrument, which  sounds 
alone  by  sympathetic  vibration, must  neces- 
sarily be  vastly  louder,  as  every  one  knows, 
than  it  would  be  if  coerced  into  an  abnor- 
mal vibration  by  a discordant  tone, — that 


Chai\  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


205 


is,  if  such  abnormal  oscillation  were  pos- 
sible, which  it  manifestly  is  not.  Professor 
Helmholtz,  however,  as  shown  in  the  last 
citation,  claims  it  to  be  possible,  as  he  is, 
of  course,  compelled  to  do  to  make  it  pos- 
sible for  the  “drum-skin  of  the  ear”  to  vi- 
brate sympathetically  to  tones  of  every 
degree  of  pitch,  though  he  does  so  in  de- 
fiance of  the  experience  and  observation 
of  the  whole  scientific  world.  But  suppose 
we  admit  it  to  be  true,  for  the  present, 
that  this  drum-skin  of  the  ear  is  sufficiently 
accommodating  to  the  necessities  of  the 
wave-theory  to  act  unlike  all  other  mem- 
branes, and  to  thus  contradict  all  observa- 
tion; yet  it  is  nevertheless  undeniable  that 
when  the  note  A should  happen  to  be 
sounded  the  tone  would  be  enormously 
louder  than  when  any  other  note  not  in 
accord  was  heard,  because  the  drum-skin, 
being  thus  in  sympathetic  unison,  would 
surely  oscillate  with  many  times  greater 
amplitude  and  force  when  sounding  in 
“the  pitch  or  vibrational  number  of  its 
own  proper  tone”;  because  this  tone,  ac- 
cording to  Helmholtz,  is  so  easy  and  natu- 
ral to  make  that  the  drum-skin  “goes  on 
sounding”  it  without  being  excited  into 
action  by  any  tone  whatever!  It  simply 
jumps  or  falls  into  it  without  the  least 
effort ! But  this  does  not  require  an  ar- 
gument. It  is  self-evident;  and  Professor 
Helmholtz  would  instantly  admit  that  the 
tympanic  membrane  would  vibrate  with 
vastly  greater  amplitude  in  sympathetic 
response  to  a unison  note  than  to  a dis- 
cord. 

Then  it  follows,  with  my  “drum-skin” 
tuned  as  I have  supposed,  that  in  listening 
to  an  orchestra,  the  one  single  note  A, 
whenever  struck  by  any  instrument,  would 
always  appear  immensely  louder  to  me 
than  any  other  note,  not  only  because  it 
would  produce  greater  vibratory  motion 
in  my  ear,  but  because  it  would  be  sure  to 


meet  with  re-enforcement  by  this  continual 
relapsing  of  the  membrane  at  the  end  of 
every  other  note,  as  “ it  goes  on  sounding  in 
the  pitch  or  vibrational  number  of  its  own 
proper  tone.”  Hence,  in  my  case,  with  my 
drum-skin  tuned  as  supposed,  A would  al- 
ways be  the  predominant  tone,  and  enor- 
mously louder  than  any  other  sound  I could 
hear;  that  is,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  this 
hypothesis  of  tympanic  vibration,  which 
I am  controverting. 

But  even  this  is  not  the  funniest  feature 
of  the  problem.  As  the  “vibrational  num- 
ber” of  any  stretched  membrane  depends 
on  its  size , weight , and  tension , and  as  it  is 
perfectly  evident  that  no  two  “drum-skins” 
would  combine  these  elements  to  exactly 
the  same  degree  in  different  individuals, 
it  follows  that  with  one  person  A would 
be  the  predominant  or  loud  note,  with 
another  B or  Bj?,  with  another  C or  C$, 
with  another  D,  and  so  on  through  the 
chromatic  scale,  or  possibly  through  sev- 
eral octaves, — the  smaller  the  person  and 
the  younger  the  child  the  higher  the  pitch 
of  the  note  would  become  which  would 
sound  the  loudest,  and  vice  versa! 

Thus,  while  A would  be  to  me  a very 
loud  sound,  being  in  sympathetic  accord 
with  the  “vibrational  number”  of  my  tym- 
panic membrane,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  &c.,  would 
be  comparatively  but  feeble  tones,  what- 
ever the  vis  viva  in  their  production; 
whereas  Professor  Helmholtz,  being  a 
larger  man,  would  probably  have  a “drum- 
skin”  tuned  to  G,  which,  in  turn,  would 
make  it  the  loud  tone  to  him,  while  he 
should  scarcely  be  able  to  hear  A,  or  any 
other  note  of  the  scale,  according  to  this 
advanced  scientific  hypothesis,  since  such 
rates  of  vibration  in  his  ear  would  have 
to  be  coerced  by  a discordant  tone  ! In 
this  way  no  two  persons  would  be  physi- 
cally able  to  estimate  the  same  tone  as 
having  the  same  degree  of  intensity,  owing 


206 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


to  the  intrinsic  and  constitutional  diver- 
sity in  the  “vibrational  numbers”  of  their 
respective  “drum-skins,” — depending,  of 
course,  on  their  size,  weight,  and  tension! 
A theory  based  on  such  a sapient  hypoth- 
esis as  this,  and  supported  by  such  trust- 
worthy authorities,  surely  ought  to  com- 
mand the  respect  of  the  great  intellects 
of  the  world! 

But  this  theory  of  tympanic  vibration  is 
self-destructive  in  more  ways  than  one,  as 
I will  now  undertake  to  show.  Physicists 
assume  sound  and  light  to  be  every  way 
analogous,  and  both  to  be  equally  the  re- 
sult of  wave-motion,— the  former  acting  on 
the  auditory  nerve  by  means  of  air-waves 
and  their  impression  on  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane, while  the  latter  acts  on  the  optic 
nerve  by  means  of  ether- waves  and  their 
impression  on  the  retina.  No  man  will 
dispute  this  statement  who  has  any  know- 
ledge of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light, 
and  the  arguments  by  which  that  hypoth- 
esis has  been  deduced  from  the  supposed 
atmospheric  waves  of  sound. 

Hence,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  ethereal 
undulations  do  not  and  can  not  convey 
the  impressions  of  light  to  the  optic  nerve, 
and  through  it  to  the  brain,  by  the  vibra- 
tory motion  of  the  retina,  it  must  establish, 
by  necessary  analogy,  that  the  impressions 
of  sound  are  not  produced  on  the  auditory 
nerve,  as  physicists  claim,  by  the  oscilla- 
tions of  the  tympanic  membrane.  Is  not 
this  logically  and  necessarily  evident? 

That  the  retina,  corresponding  to  the 
drum-skin  of  the  ear,  can  not  transmit  the 
impressions  of  light  to  the  optic  nerve  by 
oscillating  in  synchronism  to  the  waves  of 
ether,  will  strike  every  intelligent  reader 
as  self-evident  the  moment  we  consider 
how  many  times  this  sensitive  organ  would 
be  obliged  to  actually  and  mechanically 
siuing  to  and  fro  every  second  to  equal  the 
periodicity  of  these  supposed  wa,  fs  of  ether. 


If  the  reader  is  not  posted  on  this  special 
question,  it  would  be  impossible  for  him 
to  make  even  an  approximate  guess. 

Let  us  consider  this  matter  for  a moment. 
The  highest  sound  in  music  is  generated 
by  only  four  or  five  thousand  vibrations 
in  a second,  which  physicists  have  mis- 
takenly supposed  to  be  transferred  by  a 
corresponding  number  of  air-waves  to  the 
tympanic  membrane,  producing  a corre- 
sponding number  of  oscillations  of  that 
organ.  But  thousands  of  vibrations  a sec- 
ond are  absolutely  as  nothing  when  it  comes 
to  the  inconceivable  number  of  swings  the 
retina  must  make  to  and  fro  as  the  waves 
of  ether  strike  it!  Millions  of  such  oscil- 
lations a second  are  nothing!  Hundreds 
of  millions  are  nothing!  Thousands  of 
millions  are  nothing!  Hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  millions  of  such  swings, in  and  out, 
of  this  delicate  sensitive  organ  every  sec- 
ond are  but  as  the  drop  to  the  bucket  con- 
trasted with  the  actual  number  of  times 
the  retina  has  to  oscillate,  if  it  acts  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  teaching  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  and  vibrates  as  this  drum- 
skin  is  forced  to  do.  This  is  no  exaggera- 
tion, if  there  is  any  analogy  between  the 
modes  of  propagation  of  sound  and  light, 
and  if  wave-motion  in  both  cases  is,  as 
universally  taught,  the  correct  solution  of 
their  phenomena. 

Professor  Tyndall  distinctly  teaches  that 
no  less  than  six  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
million  million  waves  of  ether  have  to  strike 
the  retina  every  second  while  wc  are  looking 
at  a violet  light!  These  are  his  words: — 

“All  these  waves  enter  the  eye  in  a second.  In 
the  same  interval  699,000,000,000,000  waves  of 
violet  light  niter  the  eye.  A t this  prodigious  rate  is 
the  retina  hit  by  the  waves  of  light." — Tyndali.  on 
Light,  p.  66. 

Thus  the  retina,  or  this  analogue  of  the 
tympanic  membrane,  if  there  is  any  truth 
in  the  theory  of  wave-motion,  must  physi- 
cally and  mechanically  bend  “once  in  and 


CllAP.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


207 


once  out”  as  each  wave  of  light  hits  it,  or, 
as  here  authoritatively  given, must  actually 
oscillate  to  and  fro  699,000,000,000,000 
times  every  second  without  producing  the 
least  injury  to  this  most  sensitive  and  del- 
icate organ ! 

Is  it  possible  for  an  intelligent  man  to 
believe  that  a physical  organ  of  any  kind 
could  exist  for  a single  second  unimpaired, 
even  if  constituted  of  material  a thousand 
times  more  durable  than  the  finest  steel, 
subjected  to  this  process  of  being  thus  bent 
“once  in  and  once  out”  as  many  times  a 
second  as  required  by  this  insane  hypoth- 
esis? If  not,  then  retinal  oscillation  is 
proved  to  be  an  absolute  chimera,  and 
with  it  tympanic  vibration  also  breaks 
down,  since  modern  science  assures  us 
that  the  two  operations  are  entirely  anal- 
ogous, and  equally  depend  upon  wave- 
motion  for  their  sensations. 

If,  to  avoid  this  manifestly  destructive 
effect  on  the  retina,  by  thus  bending  in 
and  out  699,000,000,000,000  times  a sec- 
ond, it  should  be  denied  that  any  physicist 
claims  such  a preposterous  result,  or  sup- 
poses it  possible  that  the  retina,  being  a 
physical,  ponderable  body,  can  be  stirred 
at  all  as  the  effect  of  contact  with  an  in- 
corporeal substance  like  ether , — then  I an- 
swer, if  light  can  make  its  appropriate  im- 
pression on  the  retina,  and  if  this  organ 
can  transmit  all  the  complex  sensations 
of  tints  and  shades  of  color  to  the  optic 
nerve,  and  through  it  to  the  brain  without 
the  aid  of  retinal  oscillation  by  the  dash- 
ing of  ethereal  waves,  why,  in  the  name  of 
science  and  reason,  can  not  its  congener — 
the  drum-skin  of  the  ear — receive  and  then 
transmit  its  characteristic  impression  to 
the  auditory  nerve  in  the  same  way,  and 
without  any  oscillatory  motion  whatever? 

Thus,  in  every  way  the  question  is  viewed, 
tympanic  vibration  is  rendered  as  useless 
as  it  is  impracticable.  It  does  not  require 


a philosopher  to  see  at  a glance  that  if 
both  light  and  odor  can  produce  their  ap- 
propriate and  peculiar  impressions  on  their 
special  nerves  of  sense  without  bending 
in  and  out  the  membranes  with  which  they 
first  come  into  contact,  that  the  oscillation 
of  this  sensitive  membrane  of  the  ear  would 
not  only  be  analogically  unnecessary,  but 
an  abrupt  departure  from  the  order,  uni- 
formity, and  harmony  of  Nature’s  plans. 
It  would  seem  that  no  other  argument 
would  be  required  to  overthrow  this  im- 
practicable assumption  of  tympanic  vibra- 
tion save  this  single  class  of  analogical 
facts  just  referred  to,  especially  in  view  of 
the  undulatorv  theory  of  light,  which  has 
been  alone  deduced  from  the  supposed 
action  of  sound. 

Really,  this  question  of  tympanic  vibra- 
tion as  the  effect  of  sound,  on  which  the 
wave-theory  absolutely  rests,  needs  only 
to  be  presented  in  its  proper  light  to  a 
mind  capable  of  reasoning  philosophically 
on  any  question  of  science,  to  show  its  en- 
tire uselessness  as  well  as  impracticability. 
The  bare  fact  that  such  pretended  laws 
and  principles  as  those  recently  examined, 
by  which  a membrane  may  be  forced  to 
vibrate  sympathetically  to  tones  of  every  con- 
ceivable pitch,  have  to  be  employed  in  order 
to  give  a show  of  plausibility  to  this  vital 
assumption  of  tympanic  oscillation;  and 
the  simple  consideration  that  renowned 
physicists,  like  Professors  Tyndall  and 
Helmholtz,  are  compelled  to  resort  to 
such  a preposterous  fallacy  as  that  any 
musical  instrument  will  vibrate  “ sympa- 
thetically” to  a pitch  of  tone  4,000  oscilla- 
tions out  of  unison,  and  that  as  soon  as 
such  exciting  tone  ceases  will  relapse  to 
its  normal  swing,  and  go  on  “ sounding  in 
the  pitch  or  vibrational  number  of  its  own 
proper  tone,”  as  the  tympanic  membrane 
must  necessarily  do,  ought  to  be  enough  to 
condemn  the  hypothesis  in  the  estimation 


208 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  every  logical  mind,  even  if  it  had  not 
been  demonstrated,  as  recently  done,  that 
such  vibration  mechanically  involves  the 
displacement  of  two  thousand  million  tons 
of  ponderable  matter  four  hundred  and 
forty  times  a second  by  the  physical  strength 
of  an  insect! 

But  I am  even  yet  not  through  with  this 
unspeakable  folly  of  tympanic  vibration. 
Its  impracticability  is  so  unavoidably  self- 
evident  that  it  is  impossible  for  Professors 
Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  to  touch  this  ques- 
tion without  developing  the  most  startling 
and  glaring  inconsistencies.  For  example, 
in  explaining  “Corti’s  arches,” — a mass  of 
microscopical  processes  in  the  inner  ear, — 
they  account  for  the  use  of  these  numerous 
rods  or  fibers  as  they  bristle  around  the 
appendages  of  the  auditory  nerve,  by  as- 
suming that  they  serve  the  practical  pur- 
pose of  conveying  sounds  of  different  pitch 
to  the  brain  by  each  of  the  different  arches 
vibrating  sympathetically  or  in  “unison” 
with  the  corresponding  pitch  of  tone  as  it 
strikes  the  drum-skin  of  the  ear!  Thus, 
each  individual  arch  or  rod  of  Corti, having 
a proper  vibrational  number  of  its  own, 
can  only  respond  when  a “unison”  sound, 
or  one  nearly  of  a corresponding  vibra- 
tional number  strikes  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane ! 

Notwithstanding  its  utterly  suicidal  and 
subversive  character,  involving  as  it  does 
the  flattest  possible  contradiction  of  the 
idea  that  the  “drum-skin”  of  the  ear  can 
vibrate  sympathetically  and  with  equal  fa- 
cility to  every  audible  pitch  of  tone,  yet 
these  greatest  of  modern  physicists  and 
the  leading  sound  experts  and  investiga- 
tors of  the  world  go  on  innocently  fabri- 
cating their  theory  of  Corti’s  arches  and 
their  absolute  acoustical  necessity  in  the 
mechanism  of  the  ear  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  each  separate  pitch  of  tone  to  the 
brain  by  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  a cor- 


respondingly tuned  Corti’s  arch, — forget- 
ting, as  usual,  for  the  time  being,  that  this 
single  little  drum-skin  of  the  ear,  a third 
of  an  inch  in  diameter,  can  individually 
and  alone  take  on  as  many  different  vibra- 
tional numbers  and  respond  sympathetic- 
ally to  as  many  separate  degrees  of  pitch 
as  the  whole  of  Corti’s  3,000  arches  put 
together,  where  there  are,  as  we  are  told, 
about  fifty  rods  tuned  in  unison  for  each 
tone  of  the  audible  register! 

The  whole  matter  is  thus  so  pitiably 
self-stultifying  and  subversive  of  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  the  wave-theory, 
as  based  on  tympanic  vibration,  that  I must 
treat  the  reader  to  a brief  citation  or  two. 
Professor  Helmholtz  remarks: — 

“When  a simple  tone  is  presented  to  the  ear, 
those  Corti’s  arches  which  are  nearly  or  exactly  in 
unison  with  it  will  be  strongly  excited,  and  the  rest 
only  slightly  or  not  at  all.  Hence,  every  simple 
tone  of  determinate  pitch  will  be  felt  only  by  certain 
nerve-fibers,  and  simple  tones  of  different  pitch  will 
excite  different  fibers.  When  a compound  musical 
tone  or  chord  is  presented  to  the  ear,  all  those  elastic 
bodies  will  be  excited  which  have  a proper  pitch  cor- 
responding to  the  various  individual  simple  tones 
contained  in  the  whole  mass  of  tones;  and  hence, 
by  properly  directing  attention,  all  the  individual 
sensations  of  the  individual  simple  tones  can  be 
perceived.” — “ The  end  of  every  fiber  of  the  audi- 
tory nerve  is  connected  with  small  elastic  parts, 
which  we  can  not  but  assume  to  be  set  in  sympa- 
thetic vibration  by  the  waves  of  sound." — Sensations 
of  Tone,  pp.  190,  222. 

In  addition  to  these  statements, on  page 
218,  in  speaking  of  the  same  rods  of  Corti, 
he  insists  that  they  “must  be  differently  tuned, 
and  their  tones  must  form  a regularly  pro- 
gressive series  of  degrees  through  the  whole 
extent  of  the  musical  scale,” — even,  of 
course,  down  to  the  lowest  notes  of  the 
pianoforte  or  organ ! 

Professor  Tyndall  is  equally  explicit  in 
teaching  that  Corti’s  organ  must  be  an  in- 
strument having  its  multitudinous  strings 
tuned  in  “unisonant  vibration”with  all  our 
audible  musical  sounds: — 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


209 


“Finally,  there  is  in  the  labyrinth  a wonderful 
organ,  discovered  by  the  Marchese  Corti,  which  is 
to  all  appearance  a musical  instrument , with  its 
chords  so  stretched  as  to  accept  the  vibrations  of  dif- 
ferent periods  and  transmit  them  to  the  nerve  fila- 
ments which  traverse  the  organ.  . . . Each  musical 
tremor  which  falls  upon  this  organ  selects  from  its 
tensioned fibers  the  one  appropriate  to  its  own  pitch, 
and  throws  that  fiber  into  unisonant  vibration"— 
Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  224. 

These  quotations  only  need  to  be  cas- 
ually examined  for  the  reader  to  recognize 
the  complete  absurdity  of  this  entire  as- 
sumption, so  essential  to  the  wave-theory, 
namely,  that  the  tympanic  membrane, 
singly  and  alone,  tuned  necessarily  to  one 
single  pitch,  if  tuned  at  all,  can  take  on  a 
vibratory  motion  corresponding  to  every 
sound  we  hear,  whatever  may  be  its 
pitch. 

We  must  understand  that  Corti’s  arches 
are  located  in  the  labyrinth  between  this 
tympanic  membrane  and  the  brain,  and 
that  every  sound  we  hear  has  to  first  pass 
through  the  drum-skin,  according  to  this 
theory,  by  the  proper  vibratory  motion, 
before  it  can  play  upon  this  harp  of  three 
thousand  strings ! According  to  Professors 
Helmholtz,  Tyndall,  Mayer,  and,  in  fact, 
all  writers  on  sound,  this  one  little  mem- 
brane can  not  only  vibrate  by  the  synchro- 
nous dashing  of  air-waves  in  perfect  pe- 
riodicity to  every  pitch  of  tone  we  hear, 
assuming  each  separate  vibrational  num- 
ber, but  it  can  even  oscillate  to  fifty  or  a 
hundred  or  even  a “thousand”  different 
degrees  of  pitch  at  once!  But  as  soon  as 
the  sound  passes  through  this  membrane, 
which  alone  answers  the  purpose  of  oscil- 
lating to  every  shade  of  pitch  we  hear,  it 
absolutely  requires  a separate  Corti’s  arch 
of  the  exact  “unison”  length  and  tension 
for  each  separate  pitch,  in  order  that  high 
and  low  sounds  may  be  equally  conducted 
to  the  brain ! Why,  in  the  name  of  acous- 
tics and  common  sense,  can  not  a single 


Corti’s  arch,  of  a single  length  and  of  one 
degree  of  rigidity,  vibrate  to  all  possible 
pitches  of  tone,  when  a single  diminutive 
drum-skin  is  susceptible  of  taking  on  not 
only  a suitable  rate  of  vibratory  motion 
for  every  audible  tone  throughout  the  mu- 
sical scale,  but  can  adapt  itself  to  a “thou- 
sand” different  and  antagonistic  vibration- 
al rates  at  one  and  the  same  time?  The 
pitiable  involvement  of  the  wave-theory 
becomes  more  and  more  conspicuous  and 
hopeless  at  every  new  advance  made  in 
the  examination  of  its  details. 

Another  practical  absurdfty  in  the  as- 
sumed sympathetic  vibration  of  Corti’s 
rods, u differently  tuned ” to  respond  to  tones 
of  all  degrees  of  pitch, or  “through  the  whole 
extent  of  the  musical  scale,"  as  just  quoted, 
must  strike  the  critical  reader  at  a glance. 
The  “differently  tuned”  strings  of  a piano- 
forte, in  order  to  produce  its  seven  oc- 
taves, are  not  only  compelled  to  vary  in 
length  from  5!  feet  to  ig  inches,  the  differ- 
ence being  as  1 to  40  ; but  the  size  and 
weight  of  these  strings,  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest,  must  diminish  in  about  the 
same  proportion.  Thus,  there  is  a differ- 
ence between  \\\<e  weight  oi  the  highest  and 
lowest  strings  of  the  pianoforte,  in  order 
to  ''‘'form  a regularly  progressive  series  of 
degrees  through  the  whole  extent  of  the  mu- 
sical scale,”  as  1 to  about  1600! 

How  is  it,  now,  with  these  Corti’s  rods, 
which,  as  Professor  Helmholtz  claims,  ac- 
complish the  same  acoustical  result,  and 
which  Professor  Tyndall  describes  as  a 
“ musical  instrument,  with  its  chords  so 
stretched  as  to  accept  the  vibrations  of  differ- 
ent periods ”?  The  fact  is  well  ascertained 
by  Hensen’s  careful  measurement,  which 
was  right  before  the  eyes  of  both  Profes- 
sors Helmholtz  and  Tyndall  when  they 
made  these  statements,  that  the  difference 
of  length  between  the  longest  and  shortest 
of  these  rods  is  only  about  one  half,  or  as 


210 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


i to  2,  while  no  perceptible  difference  in 
size  is  recorded  Notwithstanding  this 
essential  and  patent  acoustical  fact,  these 
model  investigators,  either  ignorant  of  its 
bearing  on  the  main  question  or  regard- 
less of  the  scientific  opinions  of  mankind, 
ignore  it  as  if  it  had  no  existence,  and  go 
on  bunglingly  to  teach  that  these  micro- 
scopical rods,  with  only  this  maximum 
difference  in  length  as  i to  2,  and  no  dif- 
ference in  thickness,  are  actually  tuned  as 
a “musical  instrument ” of  3,000  strings, 
in  absolute  “ unison ” with  the  chords  of  a 
seven-octave*  pianoforte,  having  an  un- 
avoidable difference  in  length,  in  order  to 
generate  the  tones,  as  1 to  40,  and  a neces- 
sary difference  in  weight  as  1 to  1600! 
Yet  such  teachers  and  such  instruction 
are  pointed  to  as  the  highest  “scientific” 
authority  on  sound! 

I must  ask  the  reader’s  indulgence  while 
presenting  just  one  other  and  the  closing 
argument  against  this  vital  assumption  of 
the  wave-theory  that  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane or  Corti’s  rods  can  vibrate,  by  any 
possibility,  in  “unison”  with  musical 
sounds, — -an  argument,  by  the  way,  which, 
like  the  preceding,  admits  of  no  kind  of 
reply. 

The  truth  is,  no  argument  would  be 
really  necessary  to  show  the  practical  im- 
possibility of  any  such  an  operation  as 
tympanic  vibration,  or  the  “unisonant” 
response  of  Corti’s  rods,  to  a mind  pos- 
sessing the  least  original  scientific  capacity. 
I say  this  advisedly  and  deliberately,  but 
kindly.  It  is  only  for  these  so-called  sci- 
entific investigators , who  have  learned  to 
circle  in  this  beaten  theoretic  path,  that 
any  serious  argument  is  required, — who, 
however  competent  and  profound  on  other 
questions  of  science,  seem  so  completely 
bewildered  and  blinded  by  the  influence 
of  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  that  they  ex- 
hibit the  puerility  of  mere  children  the 


moment  they  come  to  treat  of  the  effects 
of  wave-motion  upon  the  ear,  and  the 
office  of  its  individual  parts. 

1 his  charge,  I admit,  appears  supremely 
ridiculous  on  its  face,  made  against  such 
world-renowned  scientists  as  those  I am 
reviewing;  but,  after  the  most  careful  de- 
liberation, I defy  any  man  of  ordinary  in- 
telligence to  doubt  the  exact  and  literal 
truth  of  the  impeachment,  after  paying 
the  slightest  attention  to  the  arguments 
here  being  presented.  The  reader  need 
go  no  further  for  the  evidence  on  which 
to  base  his  decision  as  to  its  correctness 
than  the  single  consideration  which  I will 
now  submit. 

As  surprising  as  it  may  seem,  these 
learned  authorities,  who  have  devoted 
much  of  their  lives  to  the  investigation  of 
sounding  strings,  reeds,  forks,  rods,  mem- 
branes, &c.,  and  who  have  experimented 
hundreds  and  perhaps  thousands  of  times 
on  the  proper  length,  weight,  and  rigidity 
of  strings,  and  size  and  tension  of  mem- 
branes to  produce  tones  of  certain  deter- 
minate degrees  of  pitch,  have  never  once 
taken  the  trouble  to  think  of  the  practical 
impossibility  of  rods  or  strings  under  a 
certain  definite  length,  weight, and  rigidity, 
producing  such  results,  or  responding  to 
them,  by  “unisonant  vibration ”!  With  all 
their  experience  and  familiarity  with  such 
phenomena,  it  never  occurs  to  them,  when 
they  come  to  philosophize  about  the  indi- 
vidual parts  of  the  ear,  and  when  trying 
to  adapt  them  theoretically  to  the  chimer- 
ical requirements  of  the  wave-theory,  that 
it  is  acoustically  essential  for  a string  to 
be  at  least  of  a certain  determinate  length 
in  order  to  vibrate  in  “unison”  to  the  low 
notes  of  the  pianoforte,  for  example,  but 
really  suppose  and  seriously  publish  to  the 
world  that  a Corti’s  ;W,only  the  one  300th 
of  an  inch  long  (less  in  length  than  the 
diameter  of  a common  hair),  is  capable  of 


Chai\  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


21 1 


vibrating  in  “unison”  with,  and  hence  of 
actually  producing  the  tone  of,  the  low  A 
of  the  pianoforte,  having  but  twenty-seven 
vibrations  to  the  second, — which,  under 
the  best  mechanical  skill,  requires  a string 
with  a length  of  about  five  feet,  and  a 
weight  at  least  of  several  ounces! 

Instead  of  allowing  this  essential  feature 
of  length , weight , and  rigidity,  a place  in 
their  thoughts,  as  a basis  for  determining 
the  “vibrational  number”  of  a given  string, 
or  other  sounding  body, — the  very  first 
thing  a schoolboy  would  take  into  account, 
if  his  attention  were  called  to  the  subject, 
— they  quietly  and  innocently  ignore  this 
whole  question,  as  if  it  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  laws  of  acoustics,  and  go  on  rea- 
soning about  a loosely  stretched  mem- 
brane, a third  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  having 
the  same  vibrational  number  as  that  of 
the  head  of  a bass  drum,  with  a diameter 
of  three  feet!  Is  not  the  charge  I have 
just  made  well  founded?  Let  us  illus- 
trate the  matter  in  a way  which  can  not 
fail  to  produce  conviction. 

Imagine  Professor  Helmholtz  stepping 
into  the  pianoforte  manufactory  of  Mr. 
Steinway,  in  this  city,  where  he  finds  the 
proprietor  busily  engaged  on  an  improved 
working  model  of  a grand  piano,  about  an 
inch  long!  I can  fancy  the  following  con- 
versation as  occurring  between  this  great- 
est of  living  acousticians  and  sound  ex- 
perts, and  this  king  of  pianoforte-makers. 

Helmholtz. — “Good  morning,  Mr. 
Steinway.  What  in  the  world  are  you 
making  there,  in  which  you  seem  to  be  so 
deeply  absorbed?” 

Steinway. — “A  grand  piano,  sir; — an 
improvement  that  is  going  to  revolutionize 
the  business,  based  on  late  acoustical  dis- 
coveries which  do  away  with  the  necessity 
of  such  enormous  size  and  expense  in  con- 
struction. I am  building,  sir,  a vest-pocket 
piano, — one  that  a musician  can  carry 


with  him,  wherever  he  goes,  as  easily  as 
he  can  carry  his  watch.  ‘There  are  mil- 
lions in  it !’ ” 

Helmholtz. — “What  length,  Mr.  Stein- 
way, do  you  propose  to  have  the  strings?” 

Steinway. — “The  longest  strings,  or 
those  producing  the  lowest  notes  of  the 
bass, according  to  my  improved  scale, which 
I have  just  completed,  will  be  exactly  one 
inch  in  length,  while,  for  the  highest  notes, 
seven  octaves  above,  the  strings  will  be 
just  half  that  length.” 

Helmholtz. — “Mr.  Steinway,  you  are 
a practical  joker.  But  come,  now,  be  se- 
rious. We  Germans  do  not  deal  in  jokes 
when  we  come  to  mechanical  improve- 
ments, involving,  as  yours  does,  the  estab- 
lished laws  of  acoustics, — especially  when 
our  knowledge  of  them  harmonizes  with 
the  universal  experience  of  acousticians 
and  musical  instrument  makers.  You 
surely  can  not  be  in  earnest  about  prac- 
tically producing  the  tones  of  the  piano- 
forte on  such  a diminutive  affair  as  the 
one  you  are  constructing!” 

Steinway. — “I  am  in  earnest,  sir;  and 
you  will  find,  before  you  are  through  with 
me,  that  it  is  anything  but  a ljoke.'  I am 
prepared  to  prove  that  the  laws  of  acous- 
tics have  always  been  misunderstood  until 
very  lately,  and  that  musical  instrument 
makers  have  all  been  laboring  under  a 
foolish  and  expensive  mistake  in  regard 
to  the  length  of  strings  essential  to  gener- 
ate the  low  tones  of  a pianoforte,  since  it 
is  now  demonstrated  by  recent  scientific 
discoveries  that  strings  an  inch  long  are 
even  more  than  sufficient  for  the  lowest 
bass  notes  of  the  musical  scale.  You  smile, 
sir, and  seem  astonished;  but  you  will  find 
that  this  valuable  improvement,  based  on 
scientific  principles,  is  anything  but  a 
‘joke.’” 

Helmholtz. — “Why,  my  dear  sir,  you 
are  crazy!  Your  constant  study  over  this 


2 12 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


instrument  for  so  many  years  must  have 
turned  your  head,  and  converted  you  into 
a monomaniac  on  the  question  of  improv- 
ing the  pianoforte!  Take  my  advice, and 
burn  your  model  at  once;  and  banish  the 
hallucination  from  your  thoughts.  It  will 
ruin  your  reputation  and  your  business,  as 
it  is  all  nonsense,  and  a clear  evidence  of 
insanity  in  your  case,  to  suppose  that  you 
could  generate  as  low  a note  as  A,  with 
twenty-seven  vibrations  in  a second,  on 
such  diminutive  strings  as  those  on  your 
model,  only  an  inch  long  and  no  thicker 
than  fine  silk  threads ; and  then  it  is  worse 
than  folly  that  you  should  suppose  it  pos- 
sible to  raise  the  scale  through  seven  full 
octaves  by  a reduction  of  only  one  half  in 
their  length , when  the  laws  of  acoustics, 
according  to  all  experience,  require  the 
bass  strings  of  a pianoforte,  in  order  to 
generate  the  appropriate  tone,  to  be  over 
Jive  feet  long,  and  the  length  of  the  highest 
strings,  for  seven  octaves  above,  to  be  but 
the  one  fortieth  as  much!  Yet  you  madly 
essay  to  accomplish  the  same  result,  with 
a difference  of  only  one  half!  I am  sur- 
prised that  you  could  ever  have  permitted 
such  a baseless  fallacy  to  take  possession 
of  your  thoughts!  Why,  Mr.  Steinway,  the 
idea  of  attempting  to  make  a string  only 
an  inch  in  length  assume  the  normal  swing 
or  vibrational  number  of  one  five  feet  long, 
surpasses  in  folly  the  whimsicality  of  the 
clockmaker  who  would  attempt  to  force  a 
pendulum  to  beat  seconds  witli  a rod  no 
longer  than  one  of  your  strings.  Think 
of  it!  A child,  half  a dozen  years  old, 
ought  to  know  better  than  this!” 

Steinway. — “Professor  Helmholtz,  I 
will  give  you  the  reasons  which  have  led 
me  into  this  important  improvement.  I 
have  been  reading  lately  a couple  of  pop- 
ular works  on  acoustics  and  sonorous  phe- 
nomena in  general, — one  called  theAiv/jtf- 
tions  of  Tone  and  another  called  Lectures 


on  Sound.  In  these  able  productions  I 
have  learned,  for  the  first  time,  to  my  sur- 
prise, that  Corti’s  microscopical  rods,  situ- 
ated in  the  labyrinth  of  the  ear,  constitute 
a ‘musical  instrument’ — a ‘lute  of  3,000 
strings’ — which  is  actually  tuned  in  ‘uni- 
son’ to  all  the  different  strings  of  the 
pianoforte,  from  the  lowest  bass  notes  up 
to  the  high  A of  the  upper  octave.  And 
I also  found,  in  these  popular  and  author- 
itative scientific  works,  that  there  was  only 
a difference  of  one  half  between  the  length  - 
of  the  longest  and  shortest  of  these  Corti’s 
rods,  which  has  led  me  to  improve  my 
scale  accordingly.  But,  most  important 
of  all,  I found  that  the  longest  of  these 
rods  was  only  about  the  one  300th  of  an 
inch  in  length,  and  that  this  rod  really  os- 
cillated in  ‘ unisonant  vibration’  to  the 
lowest  note  of  the  piano.  Why,  then, 
should  you  call  me  crazy,  and  seem  so  as- 
tonished because  I take  advantage  of  this 
important  scientific  discovery,  especially 
when  the  strings  on  my  model  are  exactly 
three  hundred  times  longer  than  are  the 
strings  of  this  wonderful  ''musical  instru- 
ment' in  the  human  ear,  which  responds  sym- 
pathetically by  ''unisonant  vibration  to  every 
note  of  a grand  piano ? You  evidently  are 
not  posted  in  modern  science;  for,  if  you 
had  read  these  standard  works  on  sound, 
you  would  have  applauded  my  advanced 
ideas  as  away  ahead  of  all  competitors  in 
the  art  of  pianoforte-making,  instead  of 
charging  me  with  being  a ‘monomaniac’! 

“ I admit,  at  once,  that  the  pendulum  is 
governed  by  the  same  isochronous  law; 
and  hence  I assume  that  clockmakers,  as 
well  as  pianoforte-makers,  have  always 
labored  under  a radical  misapprehension, 
for  science  can  not  be  wrong,  of  course; 
and  therefore,  according  to  these  recent 
acoustical  discoveries,  it  is  perfectly  man- 
ifest that  no  special  length  of  rod  is  needed 
to  produce  sixty  or  any  other  number  of 


Cn.\r.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


213 


oscillations  of  the  pendulum-ball  in  a 
minute!  I intend,  as  soon  as  I have  dem- 
onstrated the  correctness  of  my  piano- 
scale,  to  go  and  see  the  clockmakers  of 
this  city,  and  bring  about  a revolution  in 
their  crude  ideas  of  the  pendulum  and 
the  length  of  rod  necessary  for  determinate 
rates  of  oscillatory  motion. 

“I  fear, my  dear  sir,  that  it  is  the  authors 
of  those  books  on  sound  who  are  insane, 
or  at  least  just  three,  hundred  times  nearer 
being  monomaniacs  than  your  humble  servant. 
Whenever  those  books  of  which  I have 
spoken  (which  teach  that  strings  and  rods 
three  hundred  times  shorter  than  those  of 
my  instrument  can  be  tuned  to  vibrate  in 
‘unison’  to  every  note  of  a grand  piano) 
shall  be  made  a public  bonfire  of,  as  an 
oblation  to  the  cause  of  true  scientific 
progress,  you  can  then  ask  me  to  burn  my 
model, — not  before.  Good-day.” 

Really,  with  such  a practical  rejoinder 
as  this,  one  can  imagine  Professor  Helm- 
holtz making  a bee-line  for  Berlin  to  de- 
stroy his  stereotype  plates  and  revise  his 
Sensations  of  Tone , — while  he  no  doubt 
would  stop  off  on  the  way  in  London,  and 
suggest  to  Professor  Tyndall  the  propriety 
of  adopting  a similar  course. 

It  would  seem  that  the  infinite  impossi- 
bility of  one  of  Corti’s  rods  actually  vi- 
brating in  “unison”  with  the  E-string  of 
the  double  bass,  for  example,  or  with  any 
other  note  in  the  audible  register,  would 
be  so  self-evident  that  its  suggestion  and 
advocacy  in  any  work  on  science  would 
be  scouted  and  laughed  at,  and  its  author 
branded  by  universal  acclamation  either 
as  a scientific  lunatic  or  an  ignorant  pre- 
tender. Yet,  instead  of  this,  the  very  works 
which  teach  such  inexpressible  nonsense 
as  this  “unisonant  vibration”  of  Corti’s 
rods  to  every  tone  of  the  musical  scale, 
are  received  as  standard  authorities  in  our 
greatest  institutions  of  learning. 


If  these  microscopical  rods  of  Corti  can 
really  vibrate  at  all  in  “unisonant”  response 
to  tones  of  any  kind, it  is  perfectly  evident 
that  such  tones  must  also  be  microscopical ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  tone  which  would  be 
adapted  to  the  excitation  of  such  a rod 
would  require  to  be  as  much  finer  and 
higher  than  ordinary  musical  sounds  as 
these  strings  of  Corti’s  organ  are  more 
diminutive  than  those  of  ordinary  musical 
instruments!  Is  not  this  acoustically  ra- 
tional and  consistent?  Then, as  these  rods 
of  Corti  are  but  the  one  4,000th  as  long  as 
the  strings  of  the  violin,  for  example,  it 
follows  that  Corti’s  “lute  of  3,000  strings,”' 
as  Professor  Tyndall  calls  it,  ought  only 
to  respond  by  “unisonant  vibration”  to  a 
tone  4,000  intervals  higher  than  those  gen- 
erated on  the  unfingered  chords  of  the 
violin!  This  must  be  obvious  to  every 
thinker. 

A church-organ  builder  who  should  be- 
come so  demented  or  infatuated  with 
modern  science  as  to  attempt  to  substitute 
for  his  longest  pipe  a section  of  a timothy 
straw  an  inch  in  length,  expecting  thereby 
to  produce  the  same  result,  though  he 
would  be  pronounced  a monomaniac  -by 
Professor  Helmholtz,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  piano-maker  just  supposed,  is  really 
three  hundred  times  less  insane  than  the 
scientific  writer  who  insists  that  a Corti’s 
rod  the  one  300th  of  an  inch  long  is  ca- 
pable of  vibrating  in  “unison”  to  the  same 
pitch  of  tone.  Yet  these  learned  author- 
ities can  not  see  it. 

But,  finally,  to  cut  the  argument  short 
on  these  Corti’s  rods,  and  thus  brush  the 
whole  hypothesis  of  the  “unisonant  vibra- 
tion” of  this  “lute  of  3,000  strings”  out  of 
existence  at  a single  sweep,  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  refer  to  the  recent  discovery  of 
C.  Hasse,  by  which  he  has  shown  that  these 
microscopical  processes, so  essential  to  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  have  no  existence 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


214 


at  all  in  the  cars  of  birds!  Yet  it  is  a 
notorious  fact  that  the  mocking-bird  can 
distinguish  and  analyze  tone,  noting  and 
imitating  the  finest  shades  of  difference 
in  pitch , equal  to  a prima-donna!  Thus, 
we  have  at  last  a fitting  culmination  to 
one  of  the  most  stupid  and  inexcusable 
scientific  fallacies  of  this  or  any  other 
age. 

If  Professors  Helmholtz  and  Tyndall 
have  been  blindly  led  into  this  fatal  as- 
sumption of  tympanic  oscillation  and  the 
“unisonant  vibration”  of  Corti’s  rods  in 
response  to  the  lowest  strings  of  the  piano- 
forte, they  are  neither  of  them  so  stupid 
as  not  to  realize,  as  soon  as  they  read  this 
exposure,  the  doom  which  has  overtaken 
their  elaborately  developed  hypothesis. 
To  suppose  that  such  renowned  investiga- 
tors of  sonorous  phenomena  do  not  know 
and  can  not  see, when  they  come  to  reflect, 
that  such  “unisonant  vibration”  and  tym- 
panic oscillation  are  out  of  the  question, 
and  acoustically  impossible  and  absurd, 
would  be  to  proclaim  them  ignorant  of 
the  elementary  principles  of  science.  Yet 
that  they  did  not  know  it  when  they  wrote 
their  works  on  sound , but  actually  believed 
a locust  capable  of  shaking  millions  of  tons 
of  physical  drum-skins  by  the  motion  of 
its  legs,  and  that  the  infinitesimal  rods  of 
Corti  were  actually  tuned  so  as  to  vibrate 
in  “unison”  with  the  lowest  notes  of  the 
piano  and  church-organ,  is  conclusively 
shown  by  the  numerous  quotations  from 
their  works  already  made.  What  explana- 
tion they  can  make,  if  any,  remains  to  be 
seen.  I venture  the  prediction  that  no 
reply  to  these  ruinous  arguments  will  ever 
be  made  or  even  attempted. 

Really,  in  view  of  such  mechanical  and 
acoustical  fallacies,  publicly  taught  in 
books  and  lectures,  and  which  everywhere 
superabound  in  the  writings  of  these  phys- 
icists, gravely  spread  out  before  the  world 


as  philosophy  and  science, a.r\6.  which  a school- 
boy might  easily  have  known  to  be  without 
a possible  foundation  in  fact,  one  is  almost 
inclined  to  doubt  in  toto  the  advantages 
of  a scientific  education,  and  to  fall  back, 
as  the  only  safe  thing,  on  the  common 
schools  of  our  ancestors.  What  is  the  use, 
one  is  tempted  to  ask,  of  our  so-called 
“scientific  courses,”  in  colleges  and  uni- 
versities, which  lead  to  such  preposterous 
results? 

We  need  no  better  illustration  than  the 
one  before  us,  since  we  can  scarcely  im- 
agine it  possible,  in  this  seventh  decade 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  any  phys- 
icist or  mathematician  could  be  found  who 
would  venture  to  teach  that  the  tympanic 
membrane  actually  bends  “once  in  and 
once  out”  for  each  sound-wave  and  for 
every  audible  pitch  of  tone  we  hear,  with- 
out regard  to  “vibrational  number”;  or 
that  Corti’s  rods,  less  in  length  than  the 
diameter  of  a hair,  can  be  actually  tuned 
in  “unison”  with  the  strings  of  the  violon- 
cello ! 

Still,  the  fact  that  such  unspeakable  ab- 
surdities in  science  are  really  taught  by 
sound  experts  and  investigators, like  those 
from  whom  I am  quoting,  must  be  attrib- 
uted alone,  as  I have  already  explained, 
not  to  their  want  of  intellectual  ability  or 
scientific  culture  and  discrimination,  but 
to  the  paralyzing  and  blinding  influence 
of  the  prevailing  theory  of  sound.  But 
even  this  fact,  that  a few  such  specialists 
should  be  thus  misled  and  duped  by  a 
universally  accepted  theory,  to  which  they 
have  devoted  much  of  their  lives,  is  not 
nearly  so  surprising  as  that  the  same  falla- 
cies should  be  adopted  and  believed  by 
scientific  thinkers  throughout  the  land, 
and  of  all  classes,  without  one  man  being 
found  to  lift  his  pen  or  his  voice  against 
such  an  imposition  upon  the  education  of 
the  world. 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


215 


I have  felt,  at  times,  while  plodding 
through  these  learned  disquisitions  on  the 
tympanic  membrane  bending“once  in  and 
once  out”  by  the  contact  of  air-waves 
which  have  no  existence,  and  of  Corti’s 
rods,  which  have  no  necessity  for  moving 
at  all, being  tuned  to  “unisonant  vibration” 
with  the  strings  of  the  double  bass,  that 
if  the  earnest  and  sincere  manner  in  which 
the  positions  were  maintained  did  not  pre- 
clude derision  by  evincing  such  intense 
candor  on  the  part  of  these  writers,  the 
hypothesis  ought  justly  to  meet  with  the 
jeers  and  laughter  of  the  whole  scientific 
world.  As  it  is,  the  hypothesis  from  be- 
ginning to  end  appears  to  the  writer  like 
a serious  scientific  joke,  too  absurd  to  be- 
lieve and  yet  too  grave  to  laugh  at. 

But  I have  pursued  this  feature  of  the 
subject  farther  than  I had  intended;  and 
sufficiently,  I trust,  to  convince  the  reader 
that  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  tympanic 
membrane,  as  well  as  of  Corti’s  rods,  is 
purely  visionary,  without  the  least  foun- 
dation in  fact  or  necessity  in  science, 
being  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things, 
and  self-contradictory,  as  we  have  seen, 
even  in  the  hands  of  the  most  careful  and 
critical  advocates  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sound. 

I repeat,  and  emphasize  it,  and  wish  to 
impress  it  on  the  mind  of  the  reader,  that 
if  the  retina  can  receive  the  supposed 
waves  of  ether  in  countless  millions  per 
second,  and  transfer  their  impression  to 
the  optic  nerve  without  any  oscillatory 
motion  whatever  of  that  sensitive  organ, 
and  if  the  membrane  of  the  nose  can  receive 
by  direct  contact  the  admitted  corpuscles 
of  odor  and  convey  their  impression  to 
the  olfactory  nerve,  along  which  it  is  con- 
ducted to  the  brain,  and  there  analyzed 
and  translated  into  its  characteristic  sen- 
sation of  smell,  without  the  intervention 
of  any  kind  of  wave-motion  of  air  or  ether , 


and  without  any  vibratory  action  either  of 
the  nose  or  its  membrane,  then  what  ab- 
solute folly  and  waste  of  valuable  time  on 
the  part  of  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz is  all  this  labored  and  contradictory 
effort  through  hundreds  of  pages  of  their 
books  to  prove  that  we  only  hear  sound 
by  means  of  the  oscillation  of  the  tym- 
panic membrane  or  the  “unisonant  vibra- 
tion” of  Corti’s  arches! 

What  conclusion,  then,  are  we  to  come 
to  as  regards  the  true  cause  of  these  over- 
tones, resultant  tones,  &c.,  from  which  I 
have  unavoidably  been  forced  to  digress 
in  order  to  examine  thoroughly  this  ques- 
tion of  tympanic  vibration?  They  can  not 
result  from  the  “vibrational  form”  assumed 
by  a string  while  oscillating  as  a whole, 
and  thus  producing  its  fundamental  tone, 
as  it  would  require  the  string  to  divide 
itself  up  into  as  many  as  eighteen  different 
sections  in  addition  to  the  primary,  some 
of  them  not  much  over  an  inch  long,  and 
each  section  to  take  on  a separate  and  in- 
dependent rate  of  vibratory  motion  corre- 
sponding to  the  pitch  of  its  special  over- 
tone. This,  without  an  argument,  must 
strike  the  mind  as  an  utter  impractica- 
bility. 

The  assumption  of  Professor  Helmholtz 
that  the  “vibrational  form”  of  a violin- 
string  under  the  action  of  the  bow  is  the 
real  cause  of  the  peculiar  quality  of  such 
tone,  and  consequently  the  cause  of  the 
ten  over-tones  thus  generated  which  con- 
stitute such  quality,  and  which  can  be 
heard  in  connection  with  its  primary  tone, 
is  entitled  to  but  very  little  weight  in  the 
estimation  of  the  reader.  It  will  be  re- 
collected that  while  originally  preparing 
his  hypothesis  of  “vibrational  form,”  and 
describing  the  peculiar  manner  in  which 
the  string  oscillates  and  its  velocity  in  re- 
lation to  that  of  the  bow,  he  perpetrated 
one  of  the  most  ridiculous  and  inexcusable 


2 I 6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


scientific  blunders  on  record,  making  the 
normal  velocity  of  the  oscillating  string 
ten  times  greater  than  that  of  the  bow  in  the 
player's  hand!  I refer  the  reader  back  to 
that  memorable  trip-hammer  fiasco  ex- 
posed on  pages  95-98,  in  which  it  was 
shown  that  his  whole  hypothesis  of  vibra- 
tional form  was  based  on  an  assumed  state 
of  facts  which  turned  out  to  be  exactly  in 
every  respect  the  opposite  of  what  he  sup- 
posed. If,  therefore,  this  eminent  inves- 
tigator, in  laying  the  foundation  for  his 
hypothesis  of  “vibrational  form”  as  the 
true  solution  of  the  cause  of  over-tones, 
is  wildly  at  sea  on  its  fundamental  ele- 
ment, a matter  which  a child  a dozen 
years  old  should  have  understood,  ignor- 
ing and  misconceiving  the  primary  and 
governing  laws  of  physics  as  he  did,  is  it 
not  more  than  probable  that  he  has  also 
misapprehended  the  other  essential  fea- 
tures of  these  phenomena?  At  all  events, 
though  I make  it  a rule  to  attribute  all 
these  errors  to  the  blinding  influence  of 
the  wave-theory,  it  may  be  considered 
every  way  safe,  nevertheless,  not  to  rely 
too  implicitly  on  the  absolute  accuracy  of 
observations  which  have  shot  so  wide  of 
the  mark  as  in  the  case  referred  to,  and 
which  have  been  also  found  wanting  in 
so  many  essential  instances  as  pointed  out 
all  through  the  preceding  argument. 

But  even  supposing  that  the  violin-string 
could  take  on  eleven  separate  vibrational 
rates  of  motion, acting  like  the  trip-hammer 
in  the  mill, rising  with  the  bow  slowly  and 
then  returning  ten  times  as  rapidly,  I have 
already  shown  that  the  eleven  separate 
systems  of  air-waves  necessary  for  the 
propagation  of  these  over-tones, according 
to  the  wave-theory,  do  not  and  can  not 
exist,  whether  superimposed  or  not;  and 
if  they  did  exist,  they  could  not  produce 
eleven  systems  of  oscillation  in  the  tym- 
panic membrane,  since  that  organ  does 


not  vibrate  at  all  in  response  to  sound, 
and  is  not  so  intended  to  vibrate,  as  dem- 
onstrated in  half  a dozen  ways.  And, 
finally,  1 have  shown  from  Corti’s  arches 
the  unspeakable  folly  of  this  whole  vibra- 
tory hypothesis  as  relates  to  the  ear  and 
its  individual  parts  as  the  means  of  con- 
veying sound  to  the  auditory  nerve,  and 
through  it  to  the  brain. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations  the 
reader  must  admit  the  probable  correct- 
ness of  the  conclusion  that  these  over- 
tones are  neither  generated  by  the  eleven- 
fold vibrational  form  of  the  string,  prop- 
agated by  the  eleven-fold  superimposed 
systems  of  air-waves,  nor  transmitted  to 
the  brain  through  the  eleven-fold  vibra- 
tional movement  of  the  tympanic  mem- 
brane. 

The  wave-theory,  then,  being  shown  to 
be  wholly  inadequate  to  explain  the  cause 
of  these  phenomena,  or  to  account  in  the 
slightest  degree  for  their  manner  of  prop- 
agation or  transmission  to  the  brain  through 
the  sensitive  mechanism  of  the  ear,  let  us 
now  see  if  the  corpuscular  hypothesis  may 
not  furnish  a rational  clue  to  the  solution 
of  over-tones.  If  it  shall  turn  out.  after  a 
careful  examination  of  the  question,  that 
the  assumption  of  substantial  sonorous 
pulses  really  meets  and  solves  this  complex 
and  difficult  problem  as  beautifully  and 
consistently  as  it  has  met  and  explained 
other  phenomena  encountered  since  the 
commencement  of  this  investigation,  with- 
out rippling  the  surface  of  the  solution 
with  a single  contradictory  or  impossible 
detail,  it  would  then  seem  little  short  of 
downright  madness,  not  to  say  pig-head- 
edness, on  the  part  of  physicists  to  reject 
the  possibility  of  corpuscular  emissions, 
and  cast  them  aside  as  unworthy  of  scien- 
tific consideration. 

On  the  assumption  that  sound,  like  odor, 
is  really  a substance  of  unknown  but  won- 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


217 


derful  attenuation,  emanating  from  the 
sounding  body  in  absolute  corpuscles, 
there  would  be  nothing  at  all  unreason- 
able or  marvelous  in  the  fact  that  primary 
sonorous  particles,  generated  by  the  vibra- 
tory motion  of  the  string,  should,  on  radi- 
ating through  the  air,  scintillate  or  give 
birth  to  secondary  systems  of  corpuscles, 
which  might  pass  off  in  pulses  not  only  of 
the  periodicity  of  the  primary  radiations, 
but  which  might  include  many  different 
vibratory  rates  corresponding  to  and  thus 
producing  the  feeble  over-tones  of  differ- 
ent degrees  of  pitch  described  by  Professor 
Helmholtz  as  heard  accompanying  the  fun- 
damental sounds  of  instruments. 

This  explanation  of  over-tones,  resultant 
tones,  &c.,  as  their  probable  solution,  and 
the  most  rational  way  of  accounting  for 
the  quality  of  tone,  was  distinctly  fore- 
shadowed while  discussing  the  decrease 
in  the  intensity  of  sound  as  the  square  of 
the  distance  from  its  source.  (See  pages 
156,  161.) 

By  turning  back  to  this  reference  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  primary  corpuscles  of 
sound  may  not  only  become  radiating 
centers  for  other  systems  of  smaller  sonor- 
ous particles,  but  that  these  in  turn  may 
likewise  become  radiating  fountains  of 
still  smaller  offshooting  systems,  and  so 
on, — each  new  system  of  radiations,  or 
at  least  a portion  of  each  system,  passing 
through  the  air  with  such  relative  perio- 
dicity as  will  correspond  exactly  to  the 
vibrational  numbers  of  the  over-tones 
heard,  the  same  as  if  they  had  been  gen- 
erated as  harmonics  by  the  vibratory  mo- 
tion of  corresponding  ventral  sections  of 
the  string. 

In  this  way  the  over-tones  resulting 
from  successive  subradiations  would  ne- 
cessarily become  fainter  and  fainter  about 
to  the  same  degree  as  observed ; and  in- 
stead of  being  limited  in  number  to  the 


producible  and  audible  harmonics  of  a 
string,  or  even  eighteen , as  noted  by  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz,  we  might  reasonably 
suppose  that  the  constantly  diminishing 
systems  of  radiating  corpuscles  might  be 
extended  far  beyond  the  power  of  human 
observation,  the  ear  in  the  mean  time 
being  only  capable  of  recognizing,  by  the 
best  scientific  helps,  the  number  already 
indicated.  The  probability  of  such  an 
almost  unlimited  extension  of  these  higher 
and  fainter  over-tones  only  adds  to  the 
absolute  impossibility  of  accounting  for 
their  generation  by  the  unlimited  multi- 
plicity of  segmental  divisions  of  the  string, 
or  of  their  propagation  by  an  equally  com- 
plex superposition  of  atmospheric  undu- 
lations. 

Although  this  hypothesis  of  secondary 
radiations  of  sonorous  corpuscles,  as  the 
actual  cause  of  over-tones,  can  not  be 
directly  demonstrated,  it  is  equally  true 
that  it  can  not  be  disproved,  as  has  been 
done  in  the  case  of  air-waves;  while  I have 
no  hesitation  in  believing  that  the  view 
thus  presented  can  be  so  re-enforced  by 
analogous  phenomena  in  Nature  all  around 
us,  as  to  render  it  not  only  highly  prob- 
able as  the  true  solution, but  almost  ration- 
ally certain.  At  all  events,  I propose  now 
to  show  that  it  not  only  has  this  reasonable 
and  consistent  ground  for  acceptance  as 
the  true  explanation  of  these  phenomena, 
but  that  it  is  completely  justified  and  war- 
ranted by  the  voluntary  admissions  of  the 
very  authorities  I am  reviewing,  and  in 
such  language  that  there  can  be  no  valid 
objection  urged  against  its  probability, 
especially  by  advocates  of  the  current 
theory  of  sound. 

But  supposing,  before  we  advance  fur- 
ther, that  the  current  hypothesis  is  correct 
as  to  the  first  branch  of  the  general  as- 
sumption that  these  over-tones  are  really 
generated  by  the  segmentation  of  a string 


2l8 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


into  that  many  ventral  and  vibrating  sec- 
tions; and  admitting  it  possible  that  these 
subdivisions  can  all  vibrate  at  one  time  in 
connection  with  the  fundamental  oscilla- 
tion of  the  string, and  with  as  many  differ- 
ent rates  of  periodicity  as  claimed  by  the 
theory: — such  a state  of  facts  would  be 
entirely  consistent  with  the  corpuscular 
origin  of  these  eighteen  distinct  over-tones, 
since  each  independent  section  of  the 
string,  having  a vibrational  number  of  its 
own,  would  generate  and  radiate  a system 
of  substantial  sonorous  pulses  which  would 
pass  through  the  air  with  a periodicity  cor- 
responding to  the  normal  oscillation  of  its 
ventral  segment,  as  well  as  agreeing  with 
the  observed  pitch  of  its  proper  harmonic 
over-tone.  If,  therefore,  it  were  possible 
for  a single  string,  as  Professor  Helmholtz 
claims,  to  subdivide  itself  up  into  eighteen 
ventral  segments,  besides  its  fundamental 
swing,  and  thus  generate  these  eighteen 
tones  by  as  many  corresponding  rates  of 
oscillation,  I would  not  have  to  go  a single 
step  further  for  my  explanation  of  over- 
tones, based  on  corpuscular  emissions; 
since  these  vibrational  rates  in  the  string 
would  generate  the  very  substantial  pulses 
with  the  exact  periodicity  required  by  my 
hypothesis, without  any  of  the  absurd  “su- 
perposition” required  by  the  wave-theory. 

With  this  view,  therefore,  of  the  origin 
of  these  eighteen  over-tones,  I am  only 
obliged,  so  far  as  my  hypothesis  is  con- 
cerned, to  postulate  one  impossibility — the 
separate  and  independent  oscillations  of 
eighteen  ventral  segments  of  the  string  at 
one  time;  while  Professor  Helmholtz  is 
compelled  to  assume  three , by  extend- 
ing these  eighteen  rates  of  periodicity  to 
eighteen  superimposed  systems  of  air- 
waves, and  then,  finally,  to  eighteen  inde- 
pendent rates  of  tympanic  vibration  at 
one  and  the  same  time! 

The  corpuscular  hypothesis,  therefore, 


even  accepting  the  first  impossibility  as  a 
basis,  steers  entirely  clear  of  the  other  two , 
either  of  which  is  infinitely  more  incon- 
ceivable than  the  first,  since  we  do  know, 
by  actual  observation,  that  a string  can 
vibrate  in  separate  ventral  segments,  to  a 
limited  number,  at  one  time;  while  the 
superposition  of  air-waves  or  of  tympanic 
oscillations,  even  to  the  number  of  two, 
has  not  only  never  been  observed,  but  has 
been  proved,  in  a score  of  different  ways, 
to  be  impossible  according  to  every  known 
mechanical  law  or  principle  of  science. 
Thus,  admitting  the  truth  of  the  first  and 
lesser  impossibility,  the  corpuscular  view 
of  the  origin  of  over-tones  becomes  at 
once  clear  and  simple,  and  confessedly 
three  times  as  consistent  and  reasonable 
as  the  current  explanation, — involving,  as 
it  does,  all  three  of  these  impossibilities. 
Can  any  logical  course  of  reasoning  be 
more  plainly  self-evident  than  this? 

But  suppose,  as  I insist,  that  the  self- 
division of  a string  into  eighteen  inde- 
pendent vibrating  sections  at  one  time  is 
actually  and  mechanically  impossible;  and 
assuming,  then,  that  the  fundamental  os- 
cillation of  the  string  does  really  generate 
substantial  sonorous  pulses, as  my  hypoth- 
esis requires,  is  there  anything  unreason- 
able or  impracticable  in  the  view  here 
taken  that  the  primary  sound-corpuscles 
thus  generated  should,  by  subdivision,  ra- 
diate a secondary  system  of  pulses,  these 
a third,  these  a fourth,  and  so  on,  as  al- 
ready explained,  thus  giving  rise  to  the 
various  degrees  of  over-tones  observed? 
I hold  not  only  that  such  a result  would 
be  entirely  possible  and  reasonable,  but  I 
will  immediately  show  that  it  is  clearly 
justified  by  the  teaching  of  the  very  au- 
thorities I am  now  reviewing. 

To  treat  the  matter  specifically,  I main- 
tain that  there  surely  can  be  no  greater 
difficulty  in  conceiving  the  idea  that  pri- 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


219 


mary  sonorous  corpuscles,  passing  off  from 
a sounding  body,  should  give  birth  to  sec- 
ondary pulses  of  smaller  corpuscles  pos- 
sessing a faster  or  slower  rate  of  emission, 
thus  generating  these  faint  secondary  tones 
either  higher  or  lower,  than  there  is  in 
supposing,  as  Professor  Tyndall  distinctly 
teaches,  that  the  primary  air-waves  sent 
off  from  a sounding  body,  after  they  have 
left  it  and  started  on  their  journey,  may 
“ give  birth  to  secondary  waves”  which  will 
propagate  themselves  through  the  air  with 
an  entirely  new  rate  of  periodicity,  and 
thus  generate  these  over-tones,  resultant 
tones,  &c.,  having  distinctly  different  de- 
grees of  pitch!  As  strange  as  it  may  seem 
to  the  reader,  this  is  not  only  taught  in 
unmistakable  language,  but  it  is  reiterated 
in  several  forms,  by  this  author,  as  I will 
now  proceed  to  show.  Note  the  following 
words : — 

‘ ‘ Vibrations  which  produce  a large  amount  of 
disturbance  give  birth  to  secondary  waves  which  ap- 
peal to  the  ear  as  resultant  tones." — Lectures  on 
Sound,  p.  281. 

Thus,  a primary  air-wave  has  the  power 
of  subdividing  itself,  and  giving  birth  to 
other  waves  of  a distinctly  different  pe- 
riodic rate!  Is  not  this  clear?  It  might 
be  charged,  however, that  I misunderstand 
Professor  Tyndall.  That  he  does  not  say 
that  air-waves  after  being  generated  “give 
birth  to  secondary  waves,”  but  that  “ vibra- 
tions . . .give  birth,”  c.  I assert  that  I do 
not  misconceive  his  meaning.  These  “vi- 
brations” refer  to  the  “oscillations  to  and 
fro”  of  the  air-particles  constituting  such 
primary  sound-waves,  and  not  to  the  vi- 
bratory motion  of  the  sounding  body  it- 
self, which  any  one  can  see  by  reading 
the  context.  As  a proof  that  this  is  his 
meaning,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  fol- 
lowing, where  the  same  author  is  explain- 
ing the  action  of  the  double  siren: — 

“The  sound  of  the  siren  is  a highly  composite 
one.  By  the  suddenness  and  violence  of  its  shocks, 


not  only  docs  it  produce  waves  corresponding  to 
the  number  of  its  orifices,  but  the  aerial  disturbance 
breaks  up  into  secondary  waves  which  associate  them- 
selves with  the  primary  waves  of  the  instrument.” 
— Lectures  on  Sound , p.  291. 

This  language  can  not  be  misunder- 
stood. It  is  the  “primary  waves  of  the 
instrument,”  or,  in  other  words,  the  “aerial 
disturbance”  which  “ breaks  up  into  second- 
ary waves,”  or  which  gives  birth  to  them. 
Hence,  plainly,  if  a primary  wave  can 
“give  birth  to  secondary  waves,”  which 
can  start  off  into  new  vibrational  rates, 
thus  generating  “resultant  tones”  of  en- 
tirely different  degrees  of  pitch,  I have  an 
equal  right  to  assume  that  primary  sonor- 
ous corpuscles  may  “break  up  into”  or 
“give  birth  to  secondary”  sonorous  cor- 
puscles which  will  pass  off  at  diverse  rates 
of  periodicity,  and  thus  “appeal  to  the  ear 
as  resultant  tones”  as  well  as  over-tones! 
If  secondary  air-waves  can  be  born  of  pri- 
mary air-waves,  after  leaving  the  instru- 
ment,and  can  then  change  their  vibrational 
rates  so  as  to  “appeal  to  the  ear  as  result- 
ant tones,”  two,  three,  and  four  octaves 
lower  than  such  primaries,  then  surely 
sonorous  corpuscles  constituting  the  fun- 
damental tone  of  a string,  according  to 
my  hypothesis,  may  give  birth  to  second- 
ary systems  of  corpuscles  constituting 
over-tones,  on  the  same  principle,  after 
they  have  left  the  generating  instrument, 
of  but  one  half,  one  fourth,  or  one  tenth 
such  primary  periodicity.  Is  not  this  in- 
ductive reasoning  every  way  logical  and 
consistent,  if  there  is  the  least  rational 
foundation  for  the  position  of  Professor 
Tyndall? 

But  here  comes  in  the  amusing  feature 
of  this  great  writer’s  unique  assumption 
that  “primary  waves”  can  11  give  birth  to 
secondary  waves,  which  appeal  to  the  ear 
as  resultant  tones.”  It  is  well  known  to 
every  scientific  student  that  “resultant 
tones, ”as  already  explained, are  two,  three, 


220 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  even  four  times  lower  in  pitch  than 
the  primaries  which  generate  them;  and 
hence  their  air-waves  are  correspondingly 
longer , since  the  wave-length  of  any  tone 
is  exactly  proportional  to  its  depth  of  pitch. 
Professor  Tyndall  thus  presents  us  with 
the  startling  scientific  exhibition  of  baby- 
waves  at  their  “birth”  three  and  four  times 
longer  than  their  mothers!  But  what  is 
such  a feat  as  this  for  a theory  which  has 
no  hesitation  in  giving  to  a trifling  insect 
more  physical  and  mechanical  power  than 
is  possessed  by  all  the  locomotives  in  the 
world  combined,  making  it  capable  of 
bending  “once  in  and  once  out,”  at  the 
rate  of  440  oscillations  a second,  two  thou- 
sand million  tons  of  tympanic  membranes  by 
the  motion  of  its  legs  l Why,  then,  should 
it  excite  a smile  when  we  are  informed 
that  maternal  air-waves,  according  to  this 
same  theory,  can  really  “give  birth  to  sec- 
ondary waves,  which  appeal  to  the  ear  as 
resultant  tones,"  four  times  longer  than 
these  primary  parents?  Really,  we  are 
only  just  beginning  to  get  an  adequate 
idea  of  the  prodigious  capacity  of  this 
enormously  underrated  theory  which  has 
stood  unshaken  for  so  many  centuries! 

The  new  hypothesis,  though  postulating 
a somewhat  analogous  result,  does  not  in- 
volve the  nativity  of  any  such  absurd  aerial 
or  corpuscular  monstrosities  as  just  de- 
scribed. It  only  supposes  that  the  primary 
sound-corpuscles,  as  they  pass  off  from  a 
sonorific  body,  scintillate,  or  “give  birth” 
to  smaller  secondary  particles  of  their  own 
sonorous  substance,  and  thus  become  the 
parents  of  lesser  pulses, which, radiating  in 
new  currents,  necessarily  produce  feebler 
tones,  either  higher  or  lower  as  the  case 
may  be,  according  to  the  periodicity  of 
these  successive  scintillations,  or  accord- 
ing to  the  vibrational  rate  at  which  they 
follow  each  other  through  the  air. 

Surely  Professor  Tyndall,  who  has  no 


difficulty  in  believing  that  primary  air- 
waves may,  by  subdivision  or  breaking  up, 
“give  birth  to  secondary  waves,”  thus  gen- 
erating tones  of  a different  pitch,  ought 
not  to  object  to  my  hypothesis  of  primary 
substantial  pulses  giving  birth  to  second- 
ary pulses  of  a fainter  and  fainter  type, 
which  will  “appeal  to  the  ear”  as  har- 
monic over-tones  in  connection  with  the 
fundamental  sound  of  the  string. 

Every  phase  of  the  sound  question  seems 
to  favor  this  corpuscular  idea  as  the  prob- 
ably correct  solution  of  such  exceedingly 
faint  over-tones,  rather  than  the  self-con- 
tradictory and  preposterous  abnormality 
of  primary  air-waves  subdividing  them- 
selves, or  breaking  up  into  other  waves 
four  times  as  large  as  the  originals,  each 
of  which  has  a fourfold  length  of  “con- 
densation and  rarefaction.”  The  very  fact 
that  the  so-called  harmonics  of  the  violin, 
made  in  the  usual  manner  with  the  bow 
while  gently  touching  the  proper  node  of 
the  string,  are  always  shrill,  and  heard 
among  the  loudest  and  most  distinct  tones 
of  the  orchestra,  being  produced,  as  they 
are,  by  the  proper  vibrations  of  the  corre- 
sponding ventral  sections  of  the  string, 
while  the  same  notes  generated  as  over- 
tones are  so  extremely  feeble  that  they  are 
only  audible  to  the  finest  ear,  even  by  the 
aid  of  a resonator  when  no  other  funda- 
mental tones  are  being  sounded,  would 
seem  clearly  to  indicate  that  the  latter  are 
not  generated  at  all  by  the  same  vibratory 
motion  of  the  corresponding  ventral  sec- 
tions of  the  string  which  produces  ordinary 
orchestral  harmonics. 

Here,  then,  as  now' presented,  is  my  main 
argument,  against  which,  I aver,  Professors 
Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  can  make  no  reply. 
They  are  themselves  wholly  estopped  by 
their  own  reasoning,  since  they  are  com- 
pelled to  assume  at  least  one  class  of  sec- 
ondary tones  (“resultant”)  which  do  not 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


221 


originate  in  any  possible  sectional  vibra- 
tion of  the  string,  since  they  are  lower  than 
its  fundamental  note,  and  hence  can  not 
be  accounted  for  on  the  principle  of  “vi- 
brational form”!  All  the  talk  of  these 
learned  physicists,  therefore,  about  air- 
waves “exceeding  the  limits  of  super- 
position,” and  then  breaking  up  into  sec- 
ondary waves  which  give  birth  to  resultant 
tones,  only  goes  to  help  the  corpuscular 
hypothesis  of  sound,  as  here  maintained. 
I ask  no  other  admission  from  these  high 
authorities  than  the  fact  that  “ resultant 
tones"  esen.  and  do  originate  in  the  air  after 
the  two  generating  tones  of  the  chord  have 
left  the  instrument, to  prove  that  over-tones 
may  and  necessarily  should  originate  in 
the  same  manner,  whatever  that  manner 
may  be,  and  without  the  aid  of  the  string’s 
segmental  vibration,  even  if  any  such  vi- 
bration were  possible. 

If  primary  air-waves , I repeat,  must 
necessarily“give  birth  to  secondary  waves, 
which  appeal  to  the  ear  as  resultant  tones," 
being  the  only  possible  way  to  produce 
them,  since  the  string  can  possess  no  vibra- 
tional rate  slower  than  its fundamental  swing, 
then  surely  there  is  no  acoustical  nor  me- 
chanical reason,  which  any  physicist  can 
give, why  the  same  primary  air-waves  may 
not  also  break  up  into  or  “give  birth  to 
secondary  waves,  which  appeal  to  the  ear” 
as  harmonic  over-tones!  If  primary  air- 
waves sent  off  from  a string  can,  as  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  teaches,  give  birth  to  baby- 
waves  three  and  four  times  longer  than 
themselves,  it  would  manifestly  be  easier, 
on  the  wave-theory,  and  less  strain  on 
the  primary  maternal  waves  if  they  should 
“give  birth  to  [small]  secondary  waves, 
which  appeal  to  the  ear  ’ as  upper  partial 
tones,  only  one  half  to  one  twelfth  as  long 
as  their  aerial  mothers! 

If,  in  plain  logic,  “resultant  tones”  do 
not  require  “vibrational  form”  or  any 


equivalent  segmental  vibration  of  the 
string  to  generate  them, but  can  leap  forth 
out  of  other  waves  while  passing  through 
the  air,  what,  in  the  name  of  acoustics,  is 
the  use  of  “vibrational  form”  or  the  oscil- 
lation of  any  ventral  sections  of  a string 
to  give  birth  to  over-tones!  It  is  either 
all  nonsensical  superfluity,  or  else  this 
revelation  of  Professor  Tyndall  about 
primary  waves  giving  birth  to  enormously 
long  secondary  waves,  constituting  “re- 
sultant tones,”  is  scientific  latitudinarian- 
ism  in  the  superlative  degree. 

Is  it  reasonable,  therefore,  or  consistent, 
to  suppose  that  there  could  be  two  distinct 
and  directly  opposite  plans  of  generating 
these  secondary  sounds, — a part  of  them 
being  produced  by  the  segmental  vibration 
of  the  string  while  the  fundamental  tone 
is  sounding,  and  another  part  without  any 
such  sectional  vibration  of  the  string  at  all, 
but  generated  on  an  entirely  different 
principle,  after  the  fundamental  tone  had 
left  the  string  and  started  through  the 
air?  Such  a supposition  is  manifestly  in- 
admissible. 

But  now,  after  having  shown  by  the 
order,  harmony,  and  consistency  of  things, 
the  reasonableness  of  my  positior  — that 
all  secondary  sounds,  including  upper  par- 
tial as  well  as  resultant  tones,  should  have 
but  one  mode  of  origination,  and  that 
mode  the  one  substantially  admitted  by 
Professor  Tyndall — given  birth  to  in  the 
air  after  the  instrument  has  done  its  work 
— I here  undertake  to  prove  by  the  same 
authority  that  over-tones,  or  secondary  har- 
monics, which  accompany  fundamental 
tones,  also  do  not  originate  in  the  “vibra- 
tional fora.”  of  the  instrument,  or  by  the 
independent  oscillation  of  its  sectional 
subdivisions  at  all,  but  are  generated  like 
resultant  tones  in  the  air  after  the  tone  leaves 
the  sounding  body,  by  the  primary  waves,  as 
he  claims,  subdividing  or  breaking  up  into 


222 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


harmonics  as  well  as  into  lower  resultant 
tones.  I will  first  show  this  by  continuing 
the  quotation  made  a moment  since,  in 
which  Professor  Tyndall  teaches  that  the 
primary  waves  issuing  from  the  double  siren 
break  up  into  secondary  waves, which  also 
include  these  upper  partial  or  harmonic 
over-tones.  The  reader  will  mark  the 
language  well,  as  it  drives  and  clinches 
the  last  nail  for  this  over-tone  problem: — 

“The  sound  of  this  siren  is  a highly  composite 
one.  By  the  suddenness  and  violence  of  its  shocks 
not  only  does  it  produce  waves  corresponding  to 
the  number  of  its  orifices  [its  fundamental  tone], 
but  the  aerial  disturbance  breaks  up  into  secondary 
waves  which  associate  themselves  with  the  primary 
waves  of  the  instrument  exactly  as  the  harmonics  of 
a string  or  of  an  open  organ-pipe  mix  with  their 
fundamental  tone.  When  the  siren  sounds,  there- 
fore,?/ emits, besides  the  fundamental  tone, its  octave, 
its  twelfth,  its  double  octave  [its  upper  partial  or 
over-tones],  and  so  on.” — Lectures  onSound, p.291. 

Corroborative  of  this,  another  passage 
is  equally  to  the  point,  in  which  Professor 
Tyndall  is  speaking  of  air- waves  becoming 
overgrown,  so  to  speak,  to  such  extent  as 
to  exceed  the  limits  of  “superposition,” 
and  thus  break  up  into  over-tones  “ which 
correspond  to  the  harmonic  tones  of  the  vi- 
brating body.”  Here  are  his  words: — 

“A  single  sounding  body  which  disturbs  the  air 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  law  of  the  superposition  of 
vibrations,  also  produces  secondary  waves  which 
correspond  to  the  harmonic  tones  of  the  vibrating 
body." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  282. 

Or,  as  before  quoted,  “the  aerial  dis- 
turbance breaks  up  into  secondary  waves 
which  associate  themselves  with  the  primary 
waves  of  the  instrument,”  and  thus  “ give 
birth  to  secondary  waves” which  “ correspond 
to  the  harmonic  tones  of  the  vibrating  body” ! 
Can  anything  in  science  be  plainer  than 
this? 

It  is  thus  clearly  conceded  by  this  au- 
thoritative writer  that  these  over-tones 
caused  by  the  breaking  up  of  the  “aerial 
disturbance”  into  secondary  waves  are 


not  produced  by  the  harmonic  vibration 
of  the  ventral  segments  of  the  string  at  all, 
since  they  only  “ correspond  to  the  harmonic 
tones  of  the  vibrating  body,”  whereas  they 
would  be  the  actual  harmonics  themselves 
if  made  in  that  way ! I therefore  ask  no 
other  concession  from  our  learned  author- 
ities than  the  foregoing,  that  these  har- 
monic over-tones,  as  well  as  differential 
tones,  are  the  result  of  the  subdivision  of 
the  “aerial  disturbance”  after  it  has  left 
the  string,  and  thus  can  not  come  directly 
from  the  “vibrational  form”  of  the  sound- 
ing body, as  laid  down  by  Professor  Helm- 
holtz at  the  very  foundation  of  his  theory 
of  over-tones. 

Hence,  we  arrive  at  the  logical  conclu- 
sion that  all  secondary  tones,  whether  upper 
partial  or  resultant,  originate  in  the  air, 
after  the  sounding  body  has  done  its  work, 
by  the  subdivision  and  radiation  of  that 
which  constitutes  sound  itself! 

It  only  then  remains  to  determine  what 
actually  constitutes  sound.  Is  it  simply 
wave-motion  or  substantial  corpuscles  ? 
Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  assume, 
as  their  theory  requires,  that  air-waves 
sent  off  from  the  vibrating  instrument  are 
all  there  is  involved  in  its  phenomena; 
and  that,  by  breaking  up  and  subdividing, 
all  these  secondary  tones  are  produced. 
I assert  that  this  assumption  has  been  ut- 
terly and  disastrously  overthrown  in  nu- 
merous ways  during  the  progress  of  this 
argument,  by  showing  the  impossibility  of 
wave-motion  being  the  cause  of  sound. 
Hence,  I feel  sure  the  reader  must  agree 
with  the  conclusion  that  these  secondary 
sounds  can  not  originate  by  the  breaking 
up  of  one  system  of  air-waves  which  have 
no  existence  in  Nature, and  thus  give  birth 
to  another  system  equally  having  no  ex- 
istence, while  having,  as  assumed,  an  en- 
tirely different  rate  of  vibration,  and  sev- 
eral diverse  degrees  of  amplitude  and  of 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


223 


wave-length.  Hence,  the  final  and  only 
possible  conclusion  is,  that,  if  substantial 
sonorous  pulses  be  admissible  at  all  (and 
the  preceding  considerations  must  deter- 
mine that),  the  subdivision  of  their  cor- 
puscles into  lesser  and  lesser  secondary 
radiations,  having  the  proper  periodicity, 
must  be  the  only  rational  solution  of  all 
such  secondary  sounds. 

If  Professor  Tyndall  should  object  to 
these  successive  radiations  of  already  in- 
finitesimal sonorous  corpuscles  as  being 
too  “thin”  to  admit  of  such  subdivision, 
and  as  being  beyond  our  comprehension 
or  even  conception,  I refer  him  to  his  own 
words  concerning  the  corpuscles  of  ether , 
an  hypothetic  and  all-pervading  substance 
which  is  so  attenuated  that  699,000,000,- 
000,000  of  its  waves  a second  may  dash 
against  the  retina , as  recently  quoted, 
without  injury  to  that  sensitive  organ! 
He  also  says: — 

“The  intellect  knows  no  difference  between 
great  and  small:  it  is  just  as  easy,  as  an  intellectual 
act,  to  conceive  of  a vibrating  atom  as  to  conceive 
of  a vibrating  cannon-ball ; and  there  is  no  more 
difficulty  in  conceiving  of  this  ether , as  it  is  called, 
which  fills  space , than  in  imagining  all  space  to  be 
filled  with  jelly." — “Within  our  atmosphere  exists 
a second  and  a finer  atmosphere  [ether]  in  which  the 
atoms  of  oxygen  and  nitrogen  hang  like  suspended 
grains." — Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion,^.  264, 345. 

This  is  manifestly  getting  substantial 
corpuscles  down  as  “thin”  as  required  for 
my  hypothesis  of  sound,  even  with  its 
sonorous  particles  scintillating  secondary 
radiations  of  smaller  and  “finer”  corpus- 
cles, constituting,  as  I have  assumed,  these 
upper  partial  and  lower  resultant  tones. 

If  Professor  Tyndall  can  not  understand 
how  such  secondary  corpuscular  radiations 
can  dart  off  through  the  air  at  different 
rates  of  periodicity,  corresponding  to  these 
various  over-tones  of  different  pitch,  let 
him  explain  to  the  readers  of  his  book 
how  a primary  system  of  air-waves  can 


subdivide  itself  by  exceeding  the  limits  of 
superposition , and  thus  give  birth  to  second- 
ary waves , which  propagate  themselves 
through  the  air  at  various  rates  of  perio- 
dicity, both  faster  and  slower  than  the 
primary  system,  corresponding  to  all  the 
upper  partial  as  well  as  lower  resultant 
tones,  and  I will  agree  to  at  once  adopt 
his  explanation  for  the  secondary  corpus- 
cular radiations  involved  in  my  hypothesis. 
This  is  surely  a fair  proposition  to  the 
wave-theory. 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  give  my  rea- 
sons, in  general  terms  as  well  as  in  detail, 
/or  rejecting  the  explanation  of  the  cause 
of  over-tones  offered  by  the  wave-theory, 
and  in  favor  of  the  more  simple, consistent, 
and  evolutionary  hypothesis  of  corpuscular 
emissions  as  the  true  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem,— let  us  now  look  for  a moment  at 
the  beautiful  analogical  phenomena  exist- 
ing all  around  us  favoring  the  latter  eclair- 
cissement,  while  we  note  the  unquestion- 
able fact  that  not  one  single  analogical 
consideration  can  be  found  in  Nature  (not 
even  water-waves , as  will  be  seen  in  the 
next  chapter)  favoring  the  assumption  of 
physicists  that  these  secondary  tones  owe 
their  origin  to  the  unparalleled  phenom- 
enon of  one  system  of  air-waves  breaking 
up  and  giving  birth  to  other  systems, 
each  of  an  independent  periodicity  or  “vi- 
brational number,”  and  some  of  them 
several  times  larger  than  their  primary 
parents. 

If  sound  really  consists  of  substantial 
sonorous  pulses  instead  of  the  wave-motion 
of  the  medium  which  conducts  it  (which  the 
ultimate  overthrow  of  the  current  hypoth- 
esis must  fully  establish,  as  no  doubt  most 
physicists  would  readily  admit,  since  there 
seems  to  be  no  middle  ground  to  assume), 
there  will  then  be  no  difficulty  in  conceiv- 
ing the  fact  that  the  sonorous  particles 
thus  constituting  a sound-pulse  might  con- 


224 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


tain  within  their  substantial  elements  the 
principles  and  radiating  forces  necessary 
to  generate  these  secondary  emanations. 
For,  if  original  sound-corpuscles  can  pass 
off  from  a string  by  some  unknown  law  of 
radiation  and  conduction  at  the  rate  of 
one  thousand  feet  a second,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  good  reason  why  smaller 
scintillating  particles  might  not  also  dart 
off  from  these  primary  corpuscles  in  va- 
rious directions  by  the  same  law,  and  from 
these  again  others,  and  so  on  for  each  suc- 
cessive over-tone;  and,  as  already  ob- 
served, far  beyond  the  powers  of  human 
observation. 

There  would  appear  to  be  no  reason, 
judging  from  analogy,  why  a substantial 
sound-pulse  should  not  radiate  secondary 
sonorous  corpuscles  with  such  variety  of 
periodicity  as  would  constitute  tones  of 
different  pitch,  when  the  substantial  cor- 
puscles of  odor  passing  off  from  a single 
flower  can  radiate  atoms,  or  give  birth  to 
secondary  fragrant  pulses,  which  appeal 
to  the  olfactory  nerve  as  different  and  dis- 
tinct perfumes!  A certain  rose,  for  ex- 
ample, as  my  own  sense  of  smell  bears  me 
witness,  may  not  only  be  rich  in  the  prime 
or  fundamental  fragrance  of  its  genus  rasa, 
but  may  also  radiate  at  the  same  time  the 
faint  partial  smells  or  odoriferous  over- 
tones of  both  tea  and  musk  as  its  upper 
harmonics.  And  as  that  wonderful  mu- 
sical genius,  Blind  Tom,  will  instantly 
name  off  correctly  every  note,  when  a dis- 
cordant mass  of  a dozen  digitals  is  struck 
on  a pianoforte  at  one  time,  alone  by  the 
analytical  powers  of  the  auditory  nerve, 
so  a certain  perfumer  in  New  York  is  well 
known  to  the  writer,  whose  olfactories  are 
so  sensitively  acute  and  so  educated  by 
practice  that  he  is  able  to  disentangle  in 
an  instant  an  unknown  mixture  contain- 
ing half  a dozen  or  more  essential  oils,  or 
other  odorous  substances,  and  name  each 


ingredient,  alone  by  the  analytical  powers 
of  the  nose!  The  beauty  of  this  analogy 
existing  between  the  nose  and  the  ear  and 
between  the  universally  admitted  particles 
of  substantial  odor  and  what  I claim  to  be 
the  equally  substantial  corpuscles  of  sound, 
can  hardly  fail  to  impress  the  mind  of  the 
reader  with  the  remarkable  similarity  in 
this  analytical  operation  of  the  two  nerves. 

It  is  a well-known  fact,  worthy  of  re- 
mark, that  the  analogy  existing  between 
the  eye  and  the  car  and  between  light  and 
sound  is  constantly  referred  to  by  physicists 
when  treating  on  the  phenomena  of  hear- 
ing and  of  sonorous  propagation ; but  I 
have  yet  to  see  the  first  hint  or  reference, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  any  of  their 
writings,  to  the  manifest  and  wonderful 
analogy  existing  between  the  ear  and  the 
nose,  or  between  the  action  of  sound  and 
that  of  odor ! Why  this  universal  and  ap- 
parently studied  omission?  There  can  be 
but  one  intelligible  reason  assigned  for 
such  seemingly  wilful  and  concerted  ig- 
noring of  the  most  beautiful  and  startling 
analogies  in  Nature,  and  the  utter  silence 
of  physicists  in  regard  to  their  numerous 
parallel  phenomena,  and  that  is  this:  that 
any  reference  to  the  substantial  corpuscles 
of  odor  and  the  action  of  the  nasal  mem- 
brane or  of  the  olfactory  nerve  in  receiving 
and  transmitting  to  the  brain  the  sensation 
of  smell  as  analogous  to  that  of  sound  and 
the  action  of  the  car,  would  instantly  over- 
throw the  wave-theory!  Who  could  be- 
lieve in  sound  as  wave-motion  after  the 
admission  of  any  such  analogy?  But  since 
the  comparatively  recent  origin  of  the  un- 
dulatory  theory  of  light, based  on  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  thus  making  ether  the 
analogue  of  air  and  the  retina  the  con- 
gener of  the  tympanic  membrane,  it  becomes 
perfectly  safe  and  scientifically  legitimate, 
in  the  estimation  of  tl^ese  careful  and 
candid  investigators,  to  constantly  remind 


CiiAr.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


225 


their  readers  of  the  remarkable  analogy 
between  the  eye  and  the  ear,  and  the  nu- 
merous points  of  resemblance  between  the 
action  of  light  and  that  of  sound! 

Judging  from  all  my  reading  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  I have  read  very  carefully  on  this 
question, it  is  safe  to  infer  that  if  light  were 
now  universally  accepted  as  the  emanation 
of  substantial  corpuscles,  as  it  was  before 
the  time  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Professors 
Tyndall  and  Helmholtz,  in  advocating  the 
popular  atmospheric  wave-theory,  would 
be  as  careful  to  avoid  any  reference  to  the 
beautiful  analogies  existing  between  light 
and  sound  as  they  now  are  to  give  a wide 
berth  to  those  existing  between  sound  and 
odor! 

It  is  anything  but  agreeable  to  be  com- 
pelled to  believe  such  a state  of  facts,  and 
even  more  unpleasant  to  be  forced  to  thus 
charge  home  upon  the  greatest  modern 
investigators  of  science  any  such  super- 
ficial onesidedness;  but  this  monograph 
would  be  inexcusably  imperfect,  and  the 
writer  justly  chargeable  with  direliction  of 
duty  to  the  young  scientific  students  of 
our  colleges  and  other  institutions  of  learn- 
ing, if  this  narrow-minded,  not  to  say  dis- 
ingenuous, tendency  of  our  greatest  so- 
called  impartial  scientific  investigators 
were  not  laid  open  to  the  world  as  it  de- 
serves, and  as  a warning  to  future  scien- 
tists. 

There  is  no  question  but  that  an  analogy 
exists  between  the  modes  of  operation  of 
all  the  senses,  from  the  lowest  or  most 
limited  (that  of  touch,  or  palpation ) up  to 
the  highest  or  most  unlimited  (that  of 
sight);  yet  not  much  as  between  the  lowest 
and  the  highest,  taken  at  a single  step, 
though  the  gradation  upward  is  beautiful, 
and  the  transition  as  each  step  is  taken 
from  sense  to  sense  is  perfect.  In  the 
sense  of  taction  the  sensation  depends 
upon  the  actual  contact  of  the  body  felt, 


and  not  of  its  radiated  or  diffused  cor- 
puscles, and  therefore  the  distance  is 
nothing. 

Taste  is  greatly  similar,  yet  it  borders 
slightly  on  smell,  since  a pungent  flavor 
touching  the  palate  or  any  portion  of  the 
gustatory  membrane,  instantly  diffuses  it- 
self throughout  the  entire  mouth,  from  the 
lips  to  the  laryngeal  region. 

Smell, next  in  the  upward  order,  is  higher 
than  taste  and  approaches  hearing,  receiv- 
ing the  atoms  of  perfume  at  a distance 
from  their  source, as  they  radiate  from  the 
odorous  body  through  the  air,  and  with 
considerable  velocity,  though  much  less, 
and  of  vastly  less  range  than  that  of  sonor- 
ous pulses. 

Though  hearing  can  reach  to  a still 
greater  distance  than  s?nell,  yet  the  differ- 
ence is  almost  as  nothing  contrasted  with 
the  immeasurable  difference  between  the 
range  of  sound  and  that  of  light. 

Although  the  range  of  vision  and  the 
inconceivable  velocity  of  light  almost  in- 
finitely surpass  those  of  hearing  and  of 
sound  respectively,  yet  there  are  many 
beautiful  analogies  between  them,  espe- 
cially those  of  reflection  and  convergence; 
while  there  are  many  marked  dissimilar- 
ities, such  as  the  absence  of  shadow  in 
sound,  and  its  power  of  penetration  and 
conduction  through  all  substances,  while 
light  can  pass  through  no  opaque  body 
whatever! 

There  is  also  a great  difference  in  the 
analytical  capacity  of  the  two  senses.  The 
eye  can  not  analyze  a single  ray  of  light, 
and  resolve  it  into  its  primary  colors  of 
the  spectrum  till  it  has  been  separated  by 
the  prism;  yet  the  ear  is  capable  of  grasp- 
ing and  disentangling  the  separate  notes 
of  a complex  chord,  as  just  illustrated  in 
the  case  of  Blind  Tom,  while  the  nose  in  a 
similar  manner  vastly  surpasses  the  eye  and 
almost  equals  the  ear,  as  just  shown,  by  its 


226 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


capacity  for  separating  and  recognizing  the 
individual  constituents  of  a conglomerate 
mixture  of  different  odorous  substances. 

So  natural  and  unstrained  is  this  mani- 
fold analogy  existing  between  sound  and 
odor , and  between  hearing  and  smell , that 
among  the  uneducated  masses  almost  uni- 
versally a strong  effluvium  of  any  kind  is 
referred  to  as  a “ loud”  smell!  To  speak 
of  an  intense  light  as  being  “loud ” would 
be  so  evidently  strained  and  far-fetched 
that  the  intuitive  employment  of  slang 
among  the  vulgar  has  never  yet  led  to  its 
use,  though  a flash  dress  of  very  brilliant 
colors  has  sometimes  been  spoken  of  as 
“loud."  Yet  physicists,  noted  for  almost 
judicial  candor  and  fairness  in  their  inves- 
tigations of  science,  as  just  seen,  delib- 
erately ignore  these  marked  analogies 
between  the  two  senses,  which  do  not  re- 
enforce wave-motion,  for  no  visible  reason 
except  that  they  would  prove  utterly  ruin- 
ous to  a pre-adopted  theory.  To  deny 
this  manifest  analogy  between  sound  and 
odor  and  between  the  auditory  and  olfac- 
tory nerves  is  impossible.  To  attempt  to 
give  any  other  explanation  of  the  universal 
silence  of  physicists  on  the  subject,  when 
writing  on  sound,  is  equally  out  of  the 
question. 

The  sense  of  taste  also  possesses  an  im- 
mense register,  as  well  as  remarkable  an- 
alytical powers  like  those  of  smell  and 
hearing , — in  this  respect  also  surpassing 
the  eye , as  it  can  detect  and  recognize 
different  degrees  of  gustatory  sensation 
equivalent  in  extent  to  many  octaves  of 
sound.  In  fact,  the  register  of  distinct 
and  sensible  degrees  of  saporosity  which  a 
palate  is  capable  of  analyzing  and  distin- 
guishing, from  the  lowest  notes  of  bitter 
to  the  highest  tones  of  sweet , not  only  sur- 
passes that  of  the  eye,  even  after  the  ray 
is  separated,  but  equals  that  of  the  nose 
and  very  nearly  that  of  the  ear. 


It  is  simply  surprising  when  we  come 
to  reflect  upon  the  scores  of  different  sen- 
sible gradations  of  the  low  pungent, bitter, 
and  acrid-  flavors,  alone,  which  the  palate 
can  separately  recognize,  and  then  the 
equal  number  of  degrees  of  acidity;  and, 
finally,  the  almost  endless  varieties  em- 
braced in  the  sweets  and  fruits  of  Nature, 
including  the  viands,  condiments,  desserts, 
and  relishes  developed  by  the  culinary  art. 

These  analytical  powers  of  the  sense  of 
taste  are  so  perfect  that  a number  of  differ- 
ent kinds  of  spice — such  as  clove,  cinna- 
mon, nutmeg,  &c.,  or  other  highly  flavored 
substances, — may  be  thoroughly  pulverized 
and  mixed,  and  a pinch  of  the  compound 
be  placed  upon  the  tongue,  yet  the  com- 
posite mass  can  be  at  once  analyzed  by 
the  palate,  and  each  individual  ingredient 
definitely  determined  by  a proper  effort 
of  attention,  the  same  as  the  nose  can  un- 
tangle a combination  of  different  odorous 
substances,  or  the  auditory  nerve  analyze 
and  separately  recognize  a composite 
sound,  designating  the  constituent  ele- 
ments of  the  chord.  Yet  who  supposes 
that  the  gustatory  membrane  and  nerve 
receive  their  impressions  of  taste  by  the 
vibratory  motion  of  the  palate  rather  than 
by  means  of  the  actual  contact  of  the  cor- 
puscles of  flavor? 

It  is  also  a noticeable  fact  that  flavor 
can  produce  a persistent  or  a kind  of  reso- 
nant effect  upon  the  gustatory  membrane, 
which  will  continue  to  ring  even  for  some 
minutes  after  its  substantial  corpuscles 
have  entirely  left  the  mouth.  It  is  on  ac- 
count of  this  persistent  impression  that 
the  intensity  of  sweet,  for  example,  may 
be  augmented  through  contrast  by  pre- 
viously tasting  some  sharp  acid,  such  as 
lime-juice,  and  vice  versa; — just  as  the 
action  of  a high  or  shrill  tone  on  the  tym- 
panic membrane  causes  a low  note  imme- 
diately following  to  appear  lower  than  it 


Chap.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


227 


really  is,  and  vice  versa.  Professor  T yndall 
would,  of  course,  undertake  to  account  for 
such  tympanic  effect  by  insisting  that  the 
drum-skin  of  the  ear  "can  not  come  in- 
stantaneously to  rest”  after  being  “once 
shaken,”  or  thrown  into  vibratory  motion, 
though  he  would  hardly  venture  to  claim 
that  the  palate  continues  on  oscillating 
after  receiving  a sour  impetus  from  the  gas- 
tronomical  undulations  of  tartaric  acid! 

I might  easily  extend  this  analogy  to 
combinational  or  over-tastes , as  the  expe- 
rience of  any  one  with  a little  attention 
will  confirm.  Under  civilized  improve- 
ments in  the  culinary  art  we  can  scarcely 
taste  an  article  of  food  which  does  not 
contain  the  upper  partial  flavors  of  spices, 
condiments, seasonings, or  relishes  of  some 
kind,  in  addition  to  the  normal  flavor  of 
the  viand  proper,  which  an  effort  of  atten- 
tion can  easily  recognize  as  the  saporific 
harmonics  in  the  scale  of  gastronomy, — 
while,  without  any  additions  by  the  cuisine , 
we  all  know  that  the  delicate  flesh  of  the 
snipe  or  woodcock,  if  left  an  hour  too  long 
in  the  sun  before  being  prepared  for  the 
table,  will  so  far  “exceed  the  limits  of  su- 
perposition,’’acting  under  the  law  of  some 
sort  of  gustatory  “parallelogram  of  forces” 
as  to  “give  birth  to  secondary  waves”  of 
flavor,  the  “algebraical  sum”  of  which  will 
appeal  to  the  palate  of  the  epicure  as  a 
resultant  taste,  producing  anything  but  gas- 
tronomic harmony! 

It  matters  very  little  to  me,  therefore,  if 
physicists,  in  their  confused  and  onesided 
attempts  to  harmonize  the  inconsistencies 
of  the  wave-theory  while  treating  on  sound 
and  the  mechanism  of  the  ear , dare  only 
call  attention  to  the  analogies  of  light  and 
the  structure  of  the  eye , in  order  to  re- 
enforce that  hypothesis.  The  advocate  of 
the  evolution  of  sound,  from  its  low  and 
superficial  base  of  wave-motion  to  the 
higher  and  sublimer  level  of  corpuscular  I 


emanations,  is  not  forced  into  any  such 
asymmetric  science  by  blotting  out  a part 
of  Nature’s  analogical  chart.  He  has  no 
need  for  keeping  back  a part  of  the  price, 
or  for  suppressing  a single  page  of  the 
record  of  Nature,  since  he  has  no  such  . 
circumscribed  and  limping  hypothesis  to 
maintain.  He  is  not  tied  to  the  super- 
ficialities of  incidental  air-waves  which 
sometimes  result  from  sound-generation, 
but  which  have  no  more  causal  relation 
to  the  propagation  of  tone  than  the  inci- 
dental lengthening  of  the  shadow  of  a tree 
has  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  or  to  the  rev- 
olution of  the  earth!  He  sees  in  this  shal- 
low attempt  at  the  solution  of  sonorous 
phenomena  the  same  puerility  which  the 
far-reaching  and  evolutionary  grasp  of 
Copernicus  discovered  in  the  superficial 
and  weak  conceptions  of  philosophers  of 
his  time,  who  persisted  in  maintaining 
the  Ptolemaic  view  of  the  solar  system, 
based  on  the  mere  surface  appearances  of 
solar  and  stellar  movements.  He  recog- 
nizes, in  carefully  investigating  the  phe- 
nomena of  sound,  an  intimate  and  con- 
nected correlation  linking  all  the  senses 
into  one  beautiful  and  homologous  con- 
catenation, from  the  lowest  to  the  highest, 
and  rationally  concludes  that  if  the  first 
three — touch , taste , and  smell, — depend  for 
their  sensations,  as  the  whole  world  ad- 
mits, upon  the  absolute  contact  of  sub- 
stantial corpuscles,  that  it  is  unwarranted 
and  illogical  in  the  highest  degree,  unless 
from  overwhelming  facts  to  the  contrary, 
to  assume  that  the  remaining  two  senses 
— hearing  and  sight — should  constitute  a 
departure  from  this  inauguration  of  Na- 
ture’s plan,  and  thus  abruptly  sever  its 
analogical  chain. 

Is  it  not  every  way  in  harmony  with 
correct  ideas  of  order  and  congruity  of 
purpose  in  the  working  of  Nature’s  pro- 
cesses, that  corpuscular  contact,  which  ad- 


228 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


mittedly  prevails  in  the  operations  of  the 
first  three  senses,  should  continue  unbroken 
through  the  other  two,  with  the  corpuscles 
of  sound  and  light,  inconceivably  more 
tenuous,  and  radiated  under  the  control 
of  subtler  and  more  refined  laws,  rather 
than  to  assume  a change  in  this  consistent 
and  beautiful  programme  by  postulating 
another  and  unnecessary  arrangement  ut- 
terly unlike  that  governing  the  first  three, 
and  without  the  least  regard  to  unity  of 
design  or  continuity  of  operation? 

In  thus  assuming  to  discard  the  surface 
ideas  of  wave-motion  and  to  explain  the 
problem  of  over-tones, resultant  tones, &c., 
by  the  hypothesis  of  secondary  radiations 
of  substantial  pulses,  we  are  taught  to  re- 
ject mere  appearances  as  generally  super- 
ficial and  false;  and  this  is  re-enforced  by 
the  fact  everywhere  observed  in  Nature, 
that  what  appears  as  a single  substance 
becomes,  when  analyzed,  a duality,  and 
oftentimes  a multiplicity  of  distinct  sub- 
stances, so  interblended  as  to  utterly  defy 
the  powers  of  human  observation  till  they 
are  separated. 

That  primary  sonorous  corpuscles  should 
contain  within  their  substance  the  entita- 
tive  elements  and  forces  which  constitute 
and  radiate  these  faint  and  almost  inau- 
dible over-tones,  is  no  more  of  a mystery 
than  that  a single  drop  of  apparently  ho- 
mogeneous blood  should  not  only  be  con- 
stituted of  a multiplicity  of  separate  glob- 
ules, but  that  each  globule  should  be  a 
composite  and  heterogeneous  mass,  con- 
taining not  only  its  primary  elements  of 
albumen  and  fibrine,  but  also  its  fainter 
ingredients  of  iron,  salt,  lime,  sulphur, 
sugar,  phosphorus,  magnesia,  and  even 
water,  whose  separate  corpuscles  are  also 
composite  and  constituted  of  independent 
atoms  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen!  No  more 
marvelous  than  that  the  golden  nuggets 
cast  forth  from  the  secret  laboratory  of 


Nature  should  contain,  besides  the  prime 
metal,  the  “harmonic  over-tones”  of  silver 
and  copper;  or  even  the  faint  “partial 
notes”  of  nickel,  bismuth,  or  other  metal- 
liferous substances.  No  more  wonderful, 
carrying  the  mystery  from  the  physiologic, 
metallurgic,  and  acoustical  world,  into  the 
realms  of  psychology,  than  that  the  funda- 
mental passion  of  love  should  contain  within 
its  elemental  nature  the  substantial  “over- 
tones” of  jealousy,  hope,  and  fear,  blended 
many  times  with  the  apparently  antag- 
onistic but  deeply  rumbling  “resultant”  or 
“differential”  notes  of  anger,  hate,  and 
revenge! 

In  this  analogous  manner,  as  just  seen, 
a single  sensation  of  taste  may  recognize 
the  presence  of  half  a dozen  distinct  fla- 
vors,— a single  sniff  of  odor  may  convey 
to  the  analytical  department  of  the  brain 
adapted  to  this  sensation  a number  of  sep- 
arately recognizable  grades  of  perfume, — 
while  a single  fundamental  sound  can  be 
analyzed  by  the  auditory  apparatus  ex- 
actly in  the  same  way,  and  may  thus  be 
found  to  contain  several  distinct  over-tones 
of  different  degrees  of  pitch  and  intensity. 

Thus  each  of  the  senses,  including  the 
substantial  corpuscles  actuating  it,  has  its 
range  as  well  as  its  register, — while  every 
sensation  is  equally  the  result  of  absolute 
corpuscular  contact  with  the  appropriate 
sense-membrane.  Without  this  there  is 
no  consistency  nor  analogical  harmony  in 
the  plan  of  Nature.  For  example,  as  the 
auditory  nerve  recognizes  the  octaves  of 
sound  by  their  pitch,  from  the  slowly  pul- 
sating bass  to  the  rapidly  throbbing  so- 
prano, so  the  optic  nerve  recognizes  its 
single  octave  of  light  in  its  variety  of  color, 
from  the  deep  notes  of  Vermillion  and 
crimson,  through  the  middle  register  of 
green  and  yellow,  up  to  the  highest  tints 
of  blue  and  violet:  and  as  the  gustatory 
nerve  recognizes  its  octaves  of  taste  by 


Chav.  V. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


229 


variety  of  flavor , from  the  low  and  shud- 
dering notes  of  aloes  and  wormwood, 
through  the  mean  register  of  acids,  up  to 
the  purest  and  highest  tones  of  nectarous 
sweets, — so  the  olfactory  nerve  recognizes 
and  analyzes  its  numerous  octaves  of  odor 
by  their  variety  of  scent,  from  the  low  ex- 
halations of  putrid  substances  and  the  re- 
pugnant effluvium  of  the  sty,  up  through 
the  numberless  gradations  of  agreeable 
perfumes,  finally  culminating  in  its  highest 
octave,  containing  the  exquisite  fragrance 
of  the  rose  and  the  pink,  the  ineffable  and 
delicate  sweetness  of  the  hyacinth  and 
honeysuckle,  and  the  matchless  richness 
of  the  heliotrope  and  lily  of  the  valley, 
which  may  be  accented  as  among  the 
purest  harmonics  of  this  wonderful  odorif- 
erous scale! 

Analogies  like  these  existing  between 
the  different  senses,  particularly  between 
those  of  taste,  smell,  and  hearing,  and  con- 
sequently between  flavor,  odor,  and  sound, 
with  two  of  them  the  acknowledged  results 
of  corpuscular  contact,  could  hardly  be 
supposed  to  exist  unless  the  other  was 
equally  the  result  of  analogous  substantial 
pulses!  While  physicists  would  never 
think  of  calling  to  their  aid  any  kind  of 
wave-motion,  either  of  the  air  or  ether,  in 
accounting  for  the  sensation  of  taste  or 
smell,  and  would  resort  to  no  oscillatory 
movement  whatever,  either  of  the  palate 
or  of  the  nasal  membrane,  in  order  to  ex- 
plain the  wonderful  analytical  powers  of 
these  organs  in  disentangling  the  most 
complicated  mixtures  of  flavors  and  odors, 
is  it  reasonable,  I again  ask,  that  they 
should  upset  this  consistent  programme 
as  soon  as  they  come  to  sound,  and  thus 
violate  the  unity  and  continuity  of  Nature’s 
plan  by  making  the  sensations  of  tone  de- 
pend upon  the  manifestly  impracticable 
wave- motion  of  the  air,  the  impossible  os- 
cillation of  ^he  tympanic  membrane,  or 


the  ridiculous  “un.sonant  vibration”  of 
Corti’s  microscopical  rods? 

And  lastly,  we  have  in  perfume  the  start- 
ling analogue  of  differential  or  resultant 
tones  by  the  mingling  of  a chord  of  two 
distinct  odors,  and  thus  generating  a third 
effluvium  essentially  different  from  either. 

It  is  well  known  to  chemists  that  if  a 
solution  of  ammonia  is  saturated  with  sul- 
phureted  hydrogen  gas,  each  possessing 
its  own  peculiar  and  characteristic  odor, 
a compound  is  obtained  called  sulphide 
of  ammonium.  In  this  compound  an  ex- 
perienced observer  can  easily  detect  three 
distinct  smells,  namely,  that  of  ammonia 
proper,  that  of  sulphureted  hydrogen 
proper,  and  besides  these  a resultant  or 
“ diff erential”  smell  entirely  distinct  from 
either, which  clearly  results  from  the  com- 
bination. There  is  no  “ vibrational  form  ” 
about  this  resultant  smell  which  produces 
the  peculiar  “quality”  of  the  odor,  while 
physicists  will  hardly  undertake  its  solu- 
tion by  the  “superposition”  of  a number 
of  systems  of  odoriferous  undulations, 
aided  by  the  “parallelogram  of  forces,” 
thus  making  up  the  “algebraical  sum”  of 
all  the  different  systems  of  smell  consid- 
ered individually, as  does  Professor  Helm- 
holtz in  accounting  for  combinational 
tones! 

In  conclusion,  I will  only  repeat  in  sub- 
stance what  I have  before  intimated,  and 
now  wish  to  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  that  if  the  sensitive  membrane  of 
the  nose  is  capable  of  receiving  and  trans- 
ferring to  the  olfactory  nerve  the  number- 
less varieties  and  shades  of  perfume  of 
which  Nature  is  so  prolific,  each  one  of 
which  is  separately  conveyed  to  the  brain 
and  there  translated  into  its  proper  indi- 
vidual sensation,  without  the  aid  of  any 
vibratory  motion  whatever  of  this  mem- 
brane, and  without  the  dashing  of  super- 
imposed waves  of  air , ether,  or  any  other 


230 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


kind  of  substance  save  that  of  the  granules 
of  odor  itself, and  with  the  whole  scientific 
world  admitting  perfume  to  be  a substan- 
tial emanation  of  corpuscles,  though  un- 
recognizable by  any  other  of  the  senses, — 
is  it  not  reasonable  and  every  way  consist- 
ent to  assume,  as  I have  done,  that  sound 
likewise  is  an  emanation  of  substantial 
corpuscles,  also  unrecognizable  save  by  a 
single  sense;  and  is  it  not  rationally  prob- 
able that  such  sonorous  particles  act  on 
the  sensitive  membrane  of  the  ear,  and 
through  it  on  the  auditory  nerve,  and 
finally  on  the  brain,  in  substantially  the 
same  manner  as  do  the  corpuscles  of  odor, 


without  the  intervention  of  air-waves  or 
any  vibratory  motion  of  the  ear  or  its  in- 
dividual parts,  especially  in  view  of  the 
various  classes  of  facts  and  arguments 
brought  to  bear  in  this  chapter  against 
the  current  theory  of  sound? 

I therefore,  with  the  utmost  confidence 
in  its  truth,  submit  the  new  hypothesis 
(with  my  reasons  in  part  for  rejecting  the 
old  one)  to  the  unbiassed  judgment  of 
physicists,  especially  such  as  are  not  di- 
rectly and  personally  committed  to  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  confidently  expect- 
ing that  a verdict  will  be  rendered  alone 
in  the  interests  of  science. 


Ciiap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


231 


Chapter  VI. 


EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND. — Review , &c.}  Continued. 


A New  Class  of  Arguments  Introduced. — The  Impossibility  of  Wave-Motion  in  Solids,  such  as 
Rock,  Iron,  &c.,  demonstrated. — “Condensations  and  Rarefactions,”  the  only  Sound-Waves  claimed 
by  Physicists,  an  Absurdity  when  applied  to  Rock  or  Iron. — The  Similarity  of  Water-Waves  and  Sound- 
Waves  admitted  by  Physicists. — This  Fact  alone  Fatal  to  the  Wave-Theory. — Many  Reasons  given 
for  it. — The  Uniform  Ratio  of  Amplitude  to  Wave-Length  about  1 to  10  in  all  True  Waves. — Absence 
of  Amplitude  in  Iron  Sound-Waves  demonstrated,  while  Certain  Waves  are  Proved  to  be  476  feet  long. 
— Infinite  Difficulties  in  the  Way  of  the  Theory. — The  Absence  of  Amplitude  confirms  the  Corpuscular 
View  that  Sound  passes  in  Straight  Lines. — Fatal  Admissions  by  Professors  Tyndall  and  Plelmholtz. — 
A Condensed  Account  of  an  Interesting  Investigation  of  the  Wave-Theory  with  a Scientific  Friend. — 
Numerous  Objections  Raised  and  Answered. — The  Wind  Proved  to  have  no  Effect  on  Sound. — The 
Evidence  of  the  Signal-Service. — A Strong  Argument  against  the  Wave-Theory,  and  in  Favor  of  Cor- 
puscular Emanations. — Professor  Tyndall’s  Illustrations  of  a Row  of  Boys  and  a Row  of  Glass  Balls 
Exploded. — Physicists  shown  to  be  Dishonest  without  intending  it. — Professor  Tyndall’s  Illustration 
of  the  Tin  Tube  and  the  Lighted  Candle  Annihilated. — His  Illustration  of  the  Resonant  Glass  Jar  and 
the  Quarter  Wave-Length  Hypothesis  Scathingly  Reviewed. — Another  Illustration,  showing  that 
sounding  two  Forks  half  a Wave-Length  apart  will  produce  Interference,  Reviewed  and  Exposed. — No 
Foundation  in  Truth  for  the  Assumption. — The  Explanation  of  the  Interference  of  the  Double  Siren, 
as  given  by  Physicists,  Explained  Away. — No  Interference  about  it. — A Serious  and  Fatal  Misappre- 
hension.— An  Unmistakable  Test  Proposed  to  Professor  Plelmholtz  by  which  to  Determine  the  Whole 
Question. — The  Wave-Theory  Self-Contradictory  and  Self-Neutralizing. — Musical  Beats  Explained 
Scientifically. — Their  Production  by  Interfering  Air-Waves  Shown  to  be  Impossible. — The  Konig  In- 
strument for  Dividing  a Stream  of  Sound  into  Two  Branches  Explained. — Professor  Tyndall's  State- 
ments Positively  Denied. — Plis  Contradictions,  Inconsistencies,  and  Numerous  Scientific  Errors  Pointed 
Out. — A Final  Overwhelming  Argument  based  on  the  Nature  of  Wave-Motion  which  Alone  Breaks 
Down  the  Current  Theoiy. — Note  on  the  Supposed  Sympathetic  Vibration  of  the  Antennae  of  the 
Mosquito. — An  Amusing  Exposition  of  Professor  Mayer’s  Hypothesis. — Addenda  to  Chapter  VI. 


In  concluding  this  examination  of  the 
Undulatory  Theory  of  Sound,  it  is  my 
purpose  to  devote  the  present  chapter  to 
an  entirely  new  class  of  arguments  bearing 
directly  against  the  hypothesis.  Although 
it  might  be  considered  almost  a work  of 
supererogation  to  the  reader  who  has  at- 
tentively followed  the  argument  through 
the  preceding  chapter,  yet  the  overthrow 
of  the  theory  may  not  be  considered  com- 
plete so  long  as  physicists  can  point  to  a 
single  consideration  appearing  to  support 
the  hypothesis  which  has  not  passed  under 
review.  I shall,  therefore,  not  only  under- 
take to  introduce  a number  of  new  and 


overwhelming  arguments  against  the  cur- 
rent theory,  but  shall  call  the  reader’s  at- 
tention especially  to  the  enormous  and 
glaring  impossibilities  to  which  physicists 
are  compelled  to  resort  in  order  to  sustain 
the  idea  of  wave-motion  and  make  it  ap- 
pear feasible.  If,  therefore,  in  these  ani- 
madversions, it  shall  become  necessary  to 
expose  to  an  unenviable  view  the  hollow 
scientific  pretensions  of  some  of  our  great- 
est authorities  on  sound,  no  personal  con- 
struction must  be  placed  upon  language 
which  is  only  intended  to  apply  to  the 
theory  itself  and  to  the  arguments  em- 
ployed to  sustain  it. 


232 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


With  these  preliminary  remarks  I come 
directly  to  the  question  in  hand,  and  will 
in  the  first  place  look  at  what  I conceive 
to  be  one  of  the  most  manifest  and  self- 
evident  impracticabilities  of  the  wave- 
hypothesis  viewed  from  a common  stand- 
point, and  based  upon  the  universally  ad- 
mitted facts  and  figures  of  the  theory, 
about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute 
among  writers  on  acoustical  phenomena. 

That  sound  passes  through  wood. , water , 
rock , iron , and  other  solid  and  fluid  sub- 
stances, no  one  questions;  and  that  it 
passes  through  these  substances  on  the 
same  principle  and  according  to  the  same 
uniform  laws  of  propagation  as  through 
air  I shall  assume  as  granted,  or  at  least 
incontrovertible,  from  the  very  necessities 
of  the  case,  since  such  a thing  as  two 
modes  of  sonorous  propagation  was  never 
intimated  by  any  writer  on  the  subject, 
ancient  or  modern.  To  assume  two  modes 
of  conduction  through  any  two  substances 
— one  wave-motion  and  the  other  some- 
thing else — would  be  to  at  once  open  the 
floodgates  of  logic,  and  make  a separate 
and  dissimilar  mode  of  propagation  pos- 
sible or  even  necessary  through  every 
known  substance,  from  hydrogen  gas  to 
platinum.  There  is  therefore  no  view 
admissible  or  supposable  except  the  one 
here  assumed,  namely,  that  sound  travels 
through  all  bodies,  of  whatever  density  or 
rarity,  gravity  or  levity,  on  the  same  uni- 
form principle  and  by  the  same  established 
law  of  conduction  and  radiation  as  it  passes 
through  air. 

Should  it,  therefore,  now  be  demon- 
strated that  sound  does  not  and  can  not 
travel  through  rock,  iron,  water,  or  other 
solid  and  liquid  substances,  by  the  wave- 
motion  of  such  conducting  mediums,  or 
the  oscillation  “to  and  fro”  of  their  par- 
ticles, a child  must  see  that  it  can  not 
travel  by  wave-motion  through  air,  and 


hence  that  the  whole  undulatory  theory 
falls  to  the  ground.  The  sequential  cor- 
rectness and  necessity  of  this  conclusion 
are  unquestionable. 

Let  us  approach  this  impracticable  fea- 
ture of  the  theory  gradually  and  with  care- 
ful deliberateness.  First,  I would  seriously 
ask  the  reader  if  he  believes  it  possible 
that  the  scratch  of  a grasshopper’s  feet  or 
the  chirruping  of  a cricket  upon  one  end 
of  a long  pine  tree  is  capable  of  throwing 
the  entire  mass  of  wood  into  undulations? 
He  must  believe  it  if  he  is  ready  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  wave-theory,  since  such  a 
sound  can  be  distinctly  heard  at  the  other 
end  of  the  trunk,  three  hundred  feet  dis- 
tant,if  the  ear  is  placed  properly  against  it! 

Would  not  the  common  sense  of  any 
unbiassed  thinker  revolt  at  the  supposition 
that  all  the  molecules  constituting  that 
mass  of  wood  were  actually  caused  to 
oscillate  “to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of 
pendulums," which  are  the  words  employed 
by  Professor  Mayer, as  well  as  by  Professor 
Tyndall,  in  reference  to  the  action  of 
sound-wraves  in  air?  I use  the  phrase 
“common  sense,”  for  the  reason  that  every 
one  possesses  more  or  less  of  that  com- 
modity who  pretends  to  think  at  all.  It 
does  not  require  extensive  scientific  cul- 
ture to  grapple  with  this  question.  It  is 
one  of  the  simplest  problems  in  the  whole 
range  of  mechanics.  No  physical  effect 
can  be  produced  without  an  adequate  cor- 
poreal cause;  and  in  mechanics  the  com- 
mon sense  of  a child  assures  him  that  an 
insect  with  scarcely  appreciable  physical 
strength  could  not  stir  such  a mass  of  pon- 
derable wood  at  all,  or  the  hundred  thou- 
sandth part  of  it,  let  alone  throwing  its 
entire  substance  into  undulations  by  which 
each  atom  must  make  a separate  “small 
excursion  to  and  fro,”  and  keep  up  these 
excursions  at  the  rate  of  several  hundreds 
a second! 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


233 


Hence,  this  single  fact  that  a sound  pro- 
duced by  such  a trifling  mechanical  force 
as  the  movement  of  an  insect’s  feet,  will 
permeate  and  pass  through  the  entire  sub- 
stance of  such  a mass  of  wood,  weighing 
several  tons,  is  demonstrative  proof,  as 
strong  as  proof  can  be,  that  it  is  not  done 
and  can  not  be  effected  by  the  wave- 
motion  of  the  tree,  either  internally  or  ex- 
ternally, or  the  displacement  of  its  mate-  ' 
rial  particles,  causing  them  to  oscillate  “to 
and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pendulums” 
several  hundred  times  a second,  which 
must  obviously  be  the  case  if  there  is  any 
truth  in  the  wave-theory. 

These  remarks  also  apply  equally  and 
with  even  greater  effect  to  the  passage  of 
sound  through  rock  and  iron , since  they 
are  denser,  and  must  necessarily  require 
greater  mechanical  power  to  throw  their 
molecules  into  oscillatory  motion;  yet  the 
scratch  of  a pin  on  one  side  of  the  Rock 
of  Gibraltar  could  be  heard  through  it  by 
placing  the  ear  against  the  opposite  side, 
aided  by  a stethoscope.  I aver  that  no 
well-balanced  mind  can  believe,  when  it 
comes  seriously  to  reflect,  that  a large 
mass  of  rock  or  iron  through  which  such 
a sound  passes  is  actually  thrown  into  vi- 
bratory motion,  and  its  separate  particles 
made  to  oscillate  “to  and  fro,”  as  air- 
particles  are  supposed  to  oscillate  by  means 
of  sound-waves.  If  not,  then  the  particles 
of  air  do  not  so  oscillate,  or  assume  the 
character  of  waves,  as  the  cause  of  sound, 
and  hence  the  wave-theory  breaks  down. 

Physicists  have  noticed  the  fact,  when 
sound  passes  through  a solid  body,  such  as 
a mass  of  wood,  from  a vibrating  instru- 
ment held  against  it,  that  such  conducting 
body  experiences  a tremor  corresponding 
to  the  vibrational  rate  of  the  sounding  in- 
strument, and  this  circumstance  has  led 
them  superficially  to  infer  that  the  tremor 
of  the  wood  thus  produced  is  the  real  cause 


of  the  sound.  I have  pointed  out  the  su- 
perficiality of  these  childish  observations 
in  numerous  places  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. If  the  vibrating  instrument  has  suffi- 
cient vis  viva  while  producing  the  tone  to 
shake  the  conducting  medium  with  which 
it  is  in  contact,  only  for  a limited  distance 
around,  such  effects  of  course  occur  inci- 
dentally,^^ are,  as  already  shown,  no  part 
of  the  sound  produced,  neither  of  its  cause, 
anymore  than  the  incidental  tremor  of  the 
air  or  recoil  of  the  cannon  when  discharged 
is  an  essential  part  of  the  process  which 
hurls  the  projectile. 

These  surface  observations  of  sound  in- 
vestigators are  unfortunately  the  very  foun- 
dation on  which  the  entire  wave-theory  of 
sound  rests.  There  is  not  a physicist  who 
notices  the  jarring  of  a membrane  at  a dis- 
tance from  a sounding  body  but  will  in- 
stantly jump  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
entire  body  of  air  between  the  membrane 
and  the  source  of  the  sound  must  neces- 
sarily take  on  the  same  vibratory  motion! 
It  seems  impossible  for  them  to  grasp  the 
simple  thought  that  the  substantial  uniso- 
nant sound-pulse  itself  possesses  an  actual 
sympathy  for  the  membrane  tensioned  to 
the  same  vibrational  number  of  the  sono- 
rific  instrument.  They  can  not  see  how 
it  is  possible  for  such  substantial  sonorous 
corpuscles  to  dart  off  from  the  sounding 
body  to  the  membrane  with  such  perio- 
dicity as  to  act  sympathetically  on  its  unis- 
onant quality  and  set  it  to  oscillating, 
unless  the  entire  mass  of  intervening  air 
takes  on  a similar  oscillatory  motion. 

It  is  this  very  superficial  error,  so  thor- 
oughly ventilated  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
on  which  the  whole  wave-theory  rests.  Yet 
these  very  physicists  can  look  on  a magnet 
and  see  it  moving  a magnetic  needle  at  a 
distance  and  causing  it  to  oscillate  and 
quiver  through  plates  of  solid  glass,  with- 
out the  remotest  idea  that  such  effect  is 


234 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


produced  by  any  disturbance  communi- 
cated to  the  intervening  air!  They  even 
do  not  hesitate  to  concede  that  substantial 
but  intangible  corpuscles  of  some  kind 
may  radiate  from  the  magnet  to  the  needle, 
'passing  unimpeded  through  the  glass,  and 
thus  mechanically  move  the  needle.  Yet 
they  can  not  conceive  of  sonorous  corpus- 
cles radiating  in  synchronous  pulses  and 
in  a somewhat  analogous  manner,  acting 
in  periodicity  to  a unison  membrane,  thus 
causing  it  to  vibrate, without  a correspond- 
ing motion  of  the  intervening  air. 

One  would  really  think  that  a physicist 
who  had  ever  seen  a steel  magnet,  and 
noted  its  action  on  a compass-needle 
through  plates  of  impervious  glass,  would 
have  found  sufficient  cause  for  at  least 
suspecting  the  wave-theory  of  sound. if  not 
for  repudiating  utterly  the  unspeakable 
impossibility  of  an  insect  shaking  four 
square  miles  of  atmosphere,  and  of  exert- 
ing, by  the  simple  movement  of  its  feet, 
millions  of  tons  of  mechanical  force , as  de- 
monstrably shown  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. (See  pp.  133,  134,  &c.) 

We  shall  try  to  show  the  reader  in  this 
chapter,  if  it  has  not  already  been  suffi- 
ciently done,  the  scientific  distinction 
which  must  be  borne  in  mind  between 
sound  as  the  primary  result  of  instrumental 
vibration  and  those  incidental  effects  of 
tremor  produced  upon  the  conducting 
medium  near  the  instrument  by  the  same 
motion  which  generates  the  tone. 

Another  preliminary  proof  that  sound 
can  not  and  does  not  pass  through  a mass 
of  solid  rock  or  iron  by  means  of  wave- 
motion  is  deduced  from  the  essential  defi- 
nition of  a sound-wave  as  given  by  physi- 
cists. Water-waves,  which  are  referred  to 
by  all  writers  on  sound  as  illustrative  of 
air-waves,  have  room  to  rise  and  project 
the  water  above  its  surface-level  in  the 
form  of  ridges  which  necessarily  leave 


corresponding  depressions  in  its  surface 
in  the  form  of  sinuses  or  troughs.  But  in 
the  midst  of  the  aerial  ocean  there  is  no 
atmospheric  surface  above  which  an  air- 
wave can  project  itself  in  the  form  of  a 
crest;  hence  the  wave-theory  teaches,  as 
the  only  alternative,  that  the  air  must  be 
condensed  or  packed  into  more  closely  com- 
pressed ridges  to  represent  the  crests  of  a 
system  of  water-waves,  and  be  rarefied  or 
expanded  to  represent  the  furrows,  thus 
amounting  to  exactly  the  same  thing. 
Professors  Tyndall,  Mayer,  and  Helmholtz, 
as  fully  quoted  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
have  repeatedly  told  us  that  the  only  kind 
of  a wave  which  sound  can  produce  in  the 
air  is  “a  condensation  and  its  associated 
rarefaction ,”  representing  the  crest  and 
furrow  of  a water-wave.  “A  condensation 
and  a rarefaction , then,”  says  Professor 
Tyndall,  “are  the  two  constituents  of  a wave 
of  sound."  (See  pages  125,  126.) 

Now,  as  “a  sonorous  wave”  in  a mass 
of  air,  as  Professor  Mayer  expresses  it, 
“is  always  formed  of  two  parts,  one  half  of 
air  in  a state  of  condensation , the  other  half 
of  rarefied  air,”  then  it  follows,  and  Pro- 
fessor Mayer  can  not  and  will  not  deny  it, 
that  a sound-wave  passing  through  a mass 
of  iron  must  also  be  formed  of  “two parts, 
one  half  of  iron  in  a state  of  condensation, 
and  the  other  half  of  rarefied  iron" ; that 
is,  according  to  this  highly  “scientific” 
theory,  the  molecules  of  iron  or  rock 
throughout  the  entire  mass  permeated  by 
the  sound  must  be  alternately  compressed 
or  squeezed  more  closely  together,  and  then 
expanded  more  widely  apart  several  hun- 
dred or  perhaps  several  thousand  times 
a second,  according  to  the  pitch  of  the 
tone. 

Is  the  reader  prepared  to  accept  this 
essential  and  indisputable  feature  of  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  namely,  that  the 
stridulation  of  a locust, for  example, sitting 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


235 


on  a rock,  actually  throws  the  molecules 
of  the  entire  mass  of  granite  first  into  con- 
densations and  then  into  rarefactions , — first 
squeezes  the  particles  of  stone  more  closely 
together,  and  . then  rarefies  or  expands 
them  more  widely  apart?  If  he  does  not 
and  can  not  believe  this,  then  he  does  not 
and  can  not  believe  that  sound  passes 
through  rock  or  iron  by  wave-motion  at 
all,  and  hence  that  wave-motion  is  also 
out  of  the  question  in  air,  as  this  is  the 
only  possible  form  of  a wave  which  can 
occur  in  the  interior  of  a mass  of  any  kind 
of  substance  such  as  air,  water,  wood,  or 
iron,  as  distinctly  taught  by  Professor 
Helmholtz  and  all  writers  on  sound. 

As  such  a preposterous  result  as  the 
compression  of  the  particles  of  a granite 
rock  by  the  physical  strength  of  an  insect 
is  revolting  to  every  idea  of  mechanics, 
and  overthrows  all  known  relations  exist- 
ing between  cause  and  effect,  it  follows 
that  the  idea  of  sound  traveling  through 
rock  or  iron  by  wave-motion  must  be  a 
manifest  scientific  fallacy,  and  hence  that 
wave-motion  in  air  equally  falls  to  the 
ground,  since  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
as  before  shown,  there  can  be  no  two 
modes  of  sound-propagation  through  dif- 
ferent substances. 

It  need  not  be  said  here  that  the  sound 
of  an  insect  would  not  permeate  a rock. 
Why,  the  pulverizing  of  a granite  rock  a 
hundred  feet  square  to  powder  would  be 
almost  as  nothing  to  the  task  absolutely 
performed  by  a locust,  according  to  the 
wave-theory,  in  converting  four  cubic  miles 
of  atmosphere  into  “condensations  and 
rarefactions,”  exerting  sufficient  pressure 
and  thus  generating  sufficient  heat  to  add 
one  sixth  to  the  velocity  of  sound  through- 
out this  entire  mass  of  air!  (See  pp.  145, 
146.)  The  most  trifling  sound  produced 
against  a mass  of  rock  ten  feet  thick,  even 
the  movement  of  an  insect’s  feet,  can  be 


heard  through  it,  as  just  remarked,  by  the 
aid  of  a stethoscope.  According  to  the 
wave-theory  this  is  only  effected  by  the 
particles  of  stone  being  thrown  into  undu- 
lations, consisting  of  absolute  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions.” 

But  further,  in  the  preparatory  discus- 
sion of  this  argument,  we  are  taught  by 
Professor  Tyndall  and  Laplace,  as  just 
intimated,  that  the  squeezing  of  the  air- 
particles  together  generates  heat  (as  it 
necessarily  must  do),  which  adds  one  sixth 
to  the  velocity  of  sound  in  air;  and  hence 
it  follows,  as  the  same  “condensations  and 
rarefactions”  must  take  place  in  a mass  of 
iron,  since  there  must  be  the  same  wave- 
motion  and  almost  infinitely  greater  com- 
pression exerted,  that  they  also  must  gen- 
erate heat  at  each  compression  or  con- 
densation of  the  iron-particles,  which 
should  also  augment  the  velocity  of  sound 
through  all  such  solid  substances  in  like 
proportion.  But  as  iron  once  heated  to 
any  degree  whatever  can  not  instantly  be- 
come cool,  even  if  dipped  into  cold  water, 
it  would  therefore  be  impossible  for  any 
one  of  the  440  condensations  a second, 
produced  by  the  stridulation  of  the  locust, 
to  cool  off  by  its  associated  rarefaction 
before  another  condensation  with  the  same 
heat  would  re-enforce  it.  Thus,  the  heat 
generated  by  one  condensation  of  the  iron 
could  not  have  time  to  subside  in  any  cal- 
culable degree  before  its  re-enforcement 
by  another,  that  by  another,  and  so  on,  at 
the  rate  of  440  a second,  if  the  pitch  of 
the  stridulation  should  be  that  of  A,  or 
the  same  as  that  of  the  second  string  of 
the  violin.  It  is  thus  perfectly  manifest, 
according  to  the  wave-theory,  that  a locust 
by  singing  for  one  minute,  sitting  on  a mass 
of  iron,  ought  to  raise  its  temperature  to 
incandescence;  for  however  little  heat  a 
single  “condensation”  would  produce,  this 
rapid  accumulation,  without  time  for  sub- 


236 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sidence,  would  nepessarily  accomplish  this 
miraculous  result.  But  as  not  the  slightest 
heat  is  generated  by  the  passage  of  sound 
through  iron  or  any  other  solid  body,  I care 
not  how  intense  or  how  long  continued 
such  sound  may  be,  it  follows  that  no  “con- 
densation" and  hence  no  wave-motion  can 
take  place  in  the  passage  of  sound  through 
any  substance  whatever! 

All  writers  on  sound  tell  us  that  the 
material  particles  of  any  body  constituting 
the  sonorous  wave,  though  they  do  not 
travel  forward  with  the  undulation  or 
swell,  yet  have  a “to  and  fro”  movement, 
once  up  and  once  down  as  each  wave 
passes,  as  observed  in  the  up  and  down 
movement  of  a chip  floating  on  the  surface 
of  water  disturbed  by  waves.  Any  one 
knows  that  without  this  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  wave-motion.  This  same 
“to  and  fro”  movement  of  the  air-particles 
is  claimed  to  take  place  in  the  passage  of 
a sound-wave  by  both  Professors  Helm- 
holtz and  Tyndall,  and  in  fact  by  every 
authority  on  sound.  I will  quote  a few 
sentences  from  these  writers  to  make  clear 
this  principle,  so  the  reader  will  not  have 
to  take  my  bare  word  for  anything.  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz,  in  speaking  of  waves 
caused  by  throwing  a stone  into  water, 
remarks: — 

“The  waves  of  water,  therefore,  continually  ad- 
vance without  returning.  But  we  must  not  suppose 
that  the  particles  of  water  of  which  the  waves  are 
composed  advance  in  a similar  manner  to  the  waves 
themselves.  The  motion  of  the  particles  of  water 
on  the  surface  can  easily  be  rendered  visible  by 
floating  a chip  of  wood  upon  it.  This  will  perfectly 
share  the  motion  of  the  adjacent  particles.  ...  By 
these  examples  the  reader  will  be  able  to  form  a 
mental  image  of  the  kind  of  motion  to  which  sound 
belongs,  where  the  material  particles  of  the  body 
merely  make  periodical  oscillations,  while  the  tremor 
itself  is  constantly  propagated  forwards.  . . . The 
process  which  goes  on  in  the  atmospheric  ocean 
about  us,  is  of  a precisely  similar  nature.  For  the 
stone  substitute  a sounding  body  which  shakes  the 
air;  for  the  chip  of  wood  substitute  the  human  ear , 


on  which  impinge  the  waves  of  air  excited  by  the 
shock,  setting  its  movable  parts  into  vibration.  The 
waves  of  <z*V proceeding  from  a sounding  body  trans- 
port the  tremor  to  the  human  ear  exactly  in  the 
same  way  as  the  water  transports  the  tremor  pro- 
duced by  the  stone  to  the  floating  chip.” — Sensa- 
tions of  Tone , pp.  14,  15. 

Professor  Tyndall  says: — 

“The  motion  of  the  sonorous  wave  must  not  be 
confounded  with  the  motion  of  the  particles  which 
at  any  moment  form  the  wave.  During  the  passage 
of  the  wave  every  particle  concerned  in  its  transmis- 
sion makes  only  a small  excursion  to  and  fro.  The 
length  of  this  excursion  is  called  the  amplitude  of 
the  vibration.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  44. 

This  is  the  universal  teaching  of  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  namely,  that  the 
particles  of  the  medium  which  conducts 
the  sound  make  an  “excursion  to  and  fro” 
every  time  a sonorous  wave  passes,  and 
that  the  length  of  the  “excursion  ” of  these 
physical  particles  constitutes  the  “ampli- 
tude of  the  vibration,”  which  is  the  same 
as  the  distance  in  a water-wave  from  the 
top  of  the  crest  to  the  bottom  of  the  sinus 
or  trough. 

Thus  the  materials  accumulate  in  our 
hands  by  which  to  annihilate  the  wave- 
theory,  if  we  only  apply  them  properly  to 
the  question  under  discussion.  Here  we 
have  it,  in  plain  words,  that  a sound  pass- 
ing through  iron  or  any  other  substance 
whatever,  or,  to  use  the  exact  words, 
“during  the  passage  of  a wave  every 
particle  concerned  in  its  transmission  makes 
only  a small  excursion  to  and  fro,"  and  that 
“the  length  of  this  excursion  is  called  the 
amplitude  of  the  vibration."  This  eminent 
writer  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  this 
does  not  apply  to  iron  as  well  as  to  air. 
He  would  not  so  stultify  logic  or  insult 
reason.  To  attempt  such  a specious  and 
wretched  quibble  to  escape  the  conse- 
quences of  wave-motion  would  be  to  make 
the  advocate  as  ridiculous  as  the  theory 
will  soon  be  shown  to  be. 

Now,  are  we  able  to  arrive  at  a correct 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


237 


and  scientific  idea  as  to  this  question  of 
“amplitude,”  or  to  determine  definitely 
the  “length  of  this  excursion ” which  the 
separate  “particles”  of  iron  must  make 
“to  and  fro”  in  order  to  constitute  a wave 
proper  while  a sound  is  passing  through 
its  mass?  I assert  that  we  have  a definite 
and  positive  law,  laid  down  by  these  writers 
themselves,  which  is  as  simple  and  as  im- 
possible to  be  misunderstood  as  any  ques- 
tion in  common  arithmetic,  telling  us  just 
how  far  these  particles  of  iron  or  air  must 
oscillate  “to  and  fro”  to  constitute  this 
“amplitude,”  which  the  reader  can  not 
fail  to  see  and  also  to  be  astonished  at  in 
a moment. 

We  now  come  directly  to  a class  of  facts 
which  no  physicist  will  pretend  to  dispute. 
The  only  visible  wave-motion  of  which  we 
have  any  definite  knowledge  is  that  which 
takes  place  upon  the  surface  of  water  or 
other  liquid.  Air-waves  are  invisible;  and 
therefore,  if  they  occur  at  all,  as  assumed 
by  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  we  can  only 
understand  their  form,  motion,  velocity, 
&c.,  and  their  relation  of  atnplitude  to 
wave-length  by  reference  to  the  form  and 
motion  of  water-waves.  Hence  it  is  that 
physicists  (without  realizing  the  ruinous 
result  to  their  theory)  constantly  refer  us 
to  the  undulations  produced  on  the  surface 
of  water  as  exactly  similar  to  sound-waves 
produced  in  the  air,  and  hence  also  in  any 
other  substance. 

I do  not  exaggerate  by  saying  exactly 
similar , but  mean  what  the  words  literally 
imply.  As  this  is  essential  to  my  argu- 
ment, which  I mean  shall  be  so  fortified 
at  this  particular  point  as  to  admit  of  no 
answer,  I will  now  prove  by  Professor 
Helmholtz — the  highest  living  authority 
on  physical  science — that  sound-waves  in 
air  and  water-waves  are  “ essentially  iden- 
tical,” of  a “ precisely  similar  nature,”  and 
travel  “ exactly  iti  the  same  way” ! Here  is 


the  evidence,  a part  of  which  has  just 
been  quoted: — 

“Suppose  a stone  to  be  thrown  into  a piece  of 
calm  water.  Round  the  spot  struck  there  forms  a 
little  ring  of  wave,  which,  advancing  equally  in  all 
directions,  expands  to  a constantly  increasing  circle. 
Corresponding  to  this  ring  of  wave  sound  also  pro- 
ceeds in  the  air  from  the  excited  point,  and  advances 
in  all  directions  as  far  as  the  limits  of  the  mass  of 
air  extend.  The  process  in  Ike  air  is  essentially 
identical  with  that  on  the  surface  of  water.  . . . The 
process  which  goes  on  in  the  atmospheric  ocean 
about  us  is  of  a precisely  similar  nature.  . . . The 
waves  of  air . . . transport  the  tremor  to  the  human 
ear  exactly  in  the  same  way.” — Sensations  of  Tone, 
PP-  14,  15- 

Many  passages  from  Professor  Tyndall’s 
works  could  be  quoted  “essentially  iden- 
tical” if  not  “precisely  similar,”  all  bearing 
on  the  subject  “exactly  in  the  same  way”! 
But  these  are  sufficient,  and  as  explicit  as 
could  be  desired. 

Then  what  is  the  law  revealed  by  water- 
waves,  according  to  this  emphatic  lan- 
guage, as  to  the  question  of  “amplitude” 
or  “this  length  of  excursion  to  and  fro”  of 
the  particles  of  water  constituting  the  un- 
dulation? It  is  this,  and  these  learned 
authorities  are  particularly  and  earnestly 
invited  to  note  the  crushing  fact,  that  in 
water-waves,  whether  large  or  small,  the 
proportionate  relation  of  amplitude  to  wave- 
length in  feet,  inches,  or  fractions  thereof, 
is  always  about  as  1 to  10  or  12,  reducing 
this  proportion  slightly  as  the  waves  in- 
crease in  size!  That  is  to  say, the  smallest 
measurable  system  of  waves,  caused  by 
drops  falling  on  the  surface  of  water,  has 
a wave-length  or  distance  from  crest  to 
crest  of  about  one  inch,  with  an  amplitude 
or  depth  from  crest  to  sinus  of  about  a 
twelfth  of  an  inch.  Waves  caused  by 
throwing  stones  of  about  a pound  weight 
into  water  have  an  amplitude  of  about  two 
inches,  and  hence  travel  about  twenty 
inches  to  two  feet  apart, as  measured  from 
wave  to  wave. 


238 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


I have  spent  much  time  in  observing 
and  measuring  waves  of  different  sizes 
and  generated  in  various  ways,  and  find 
this  law  to  be  very  nearly  uniform  in  its 
application.  Waves  when  running  freely 
a foot  high,  after  being  produced  by  a 
passing  steamboat,  are  invariably  about 
ten  feet  from  crest  to  crest, — while  ocean 
billows,  produced  by  a steady  current  of 
wind,  if  of  an  average  amplitude  of  about 
five  feet,  may  fall  somewhat  short  of  this 
average  wave-length,  being  from  forty  to 
forty-five  feet  from  crest  to  crest.  Larger 
billows  experience  about  a proportionate 
decrease  in  wave-length  in  relation  to  am- 
plitude. Yet  the  law  holds  inviolate  that 
the  longer  the  waves  from  crest  to  crest 
the  greater  must  be  the  amplitude  from 
crest  to  sinus.  There  can,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  be  no  exception  to  this  rule. 

The  very  nature  of  wave-motion  pre- 
cludes the  possibility  of  this  law  being 
otherwise,  since  manifestly  a system  of 
ocean  billows  five  feet  high  could  not  by 
any  possibility  run  within  a foot  of  each 
other,  or  with  only  a foot  from  crest  to 
crest,  as  it  would  make  their  walls  so 
nearly  perpendicular  that  they  would 
break  over  and  blend  into  each  other, 
thus  reducing  their  amplitude  to  conform- 
ity with  the  law  I have  been  illustrating. 
To  prevent  this  breaking  over  of  the  wave- 
crests  upon  each  other  it  is  absolutely  es- 
sential, as  any  one  can  see,  that  their  dis- 
tance apart  must  sustain  such  a propor- 
tionate relation  to  their  amplitude  or  height 
as  will  give  the  sides  of  their  walls  the 
proper  inclination  or  slant  to  prevent  tum- 
bling! Nothing  can  be  plainer  to  a me- 
chanical mind.  Hence,  this  law  of  which 
I have  spoken  exists  in  the  nature  and 
necessity  of  wave-motion,  and  must  hold 
good  in  waves  of  air  or  iron  produced  by 
sound,  if  they  occur  at  all,  as  well  as  of 
water,  since  they  are,  as  our  great  German 


authority  teaches,  “precisely  similar”  and 
“essentially  identical.” 

It  is  partly  this  fact  which  causes  the 
constant  display  of  breakers  on  a beach. 
The  front  waves  are  retarded  by  the  sand 
as  soon  as  the  water  begins  to  get  shallow, 
thus  allowing  those  behind  to  approach 
so  near  as  to  vitiate  this  proportionate 
relation  between  wave-length  and  ampli- 
tude, making  the  walls  too  steep  to  support 
the  crests  in  their  symmetrical  form,  and 
the  result  is  we  see  billows  continually 
breaking  over  into  foam  on  reaching  shal- 
low water.  This  result  is  also  partly  due, 
no  doubt, to  the  fact  that  the  lower  portion 
of  the  wave  being  retarded  by  the  sand 
allows  the  crest  to  outstrip  the  base, which 
adds  to  its  perpendicularity  and  augments 
the  tendency  to  break. 

In  like  manner  it  would  be  equally  im- 
possible for  a system  of  water-waves,  pro- 
duced by  a single  exciting  cause,  to  run 
fifty  feet  from  crest  to  crest  while  but  an 
inch  in  amplitude!  Such  a system  of  waves 
was  never  seen  except  in  the  visions  of 
physicists  while  dreaming  possibly  about 
the  practical  anomalies  of  the  wave-theory 
of  sound. 

I have  thus  reached  the  culmination  of 
this  argument.  If  sound-waves  and  water- 
waves,  as  we  are  authoritatively  assured, 
are  “ essentially  identical,”  of  a “ precisely 
similar  nature,”  and  travel  “exactly  in  the 
same  way,”  then  this  law  of  proportion  in 
feet  and  inches  between  amplitude  and 
wave-length  must  hold  inviolate  in  sound- 
waves as  well  as  in  water-waves,  or  other- 
wise they  are  “essentially”  opposite,  “pre- 
cisely” dissimilar,  and  travel  “exactly”  in 
a different  way! 

It  now  only  remains,  in  order  to  com- 
plete this  annihilating  argument,  to  find 
out  if  there  is  such  a thing  as  a definite, 
measurable  wave-length,  in  feet  and  inches, 
taught  by  the  current  theory  of  sound,  for 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


239 


each  determinate  pitch  of  tone.  If  such 
be  the  fact,  and  each  determinate  pitch  of 
tone  has  a definite,  measurable  wave-length, 
in  feet  and  inches,  then  we  know,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  what  must  be  the  ampli- 
tude of  such  a system  of  waves,  or  the  dis- 
tance the  wave-particles  have  to  oscillate 
“to  and  fro.”  There  is  no  possible  escape 
for  physicists  from  this  ratio,  if  sound 
travels  by  waves  at  all.  If,  for  example, 
the  wave-length  of  a certain  tone  should 
be  ascertained  to  be  ten  feet,  we  know  its 
amplitude  must  be  about  one  foot,  or  about 
one  tenth  its  length,  for  such  we  have 
found  to  be  the  infallible  law  governing 
water-waves,  which  are  “essentially  iden- 
tical” and  “precisely  similar,”  and  the 
only  visible  criterion  we  have  for  deter- 
mining the  mechanical  nature  of  wave- 
motior.  ! The  catastrophe  of  the  wave- 
theory  thus  gradually  approaches. 

I now  state, what  is  well  known  to  every 
tyro  in  science,  that  the  wave-theory  of 
sound  necessarily  teaches  that  every  pitch 
of  tone,  throughout  the  entire  range  of 
the  musical  scale,  has  a different  and  de- 
terminate wave-length  in  feet  and  inches, 
which  is  distinctly  inculcated  by  all  writers 
on  sound.  I do  not  ask  the  reader  to  take 
my  word  for  this  important  and  pivotal 
fact  in  this  argument.  Here  is  the  explicit 
evidence  from  Professor  Tyndall: — 

“Having  determined  the  rapidity  of  vibration, 
the  length  of  the  corresponding  sonorous  wave  is 
found  with  the  utmost  facility.  Imagine  this  tuning- 
fork  vibrating  in  free  air.  [The  fork  he  refers  to 
has  384  vibrations  to  the  second.]  At  the  end  of  a 
second  from  the  time  it  commenced  its  vibrations, 
the  foremost  wave  would  have  reached  a distance 
of  1090  feet  in  air  of  the  freezing  temperature.  In 
the  air  of  this  room,  which  has  a temperature  of 
about  15  degrees  centigrade,  it  would  reach  a dis- 
tance of  about  1120  feet  in  a second.  In  this  dis- 
tance, therefore,  are  embraced  384  sonorous  waves. 
Dividing,  therefore,  1120  feet  by  384  we  find  the 
length  of  each  wave  to  he  nearly  three  feet."  [Ex- 
actly 2 feet  and  n inches.] 


“A  scries  of  tuning-forks  stands  before  you, 
whose  rates  of  vibration  have  already  been  deter- 
mined by  the  siren.  This  one,  you  will  remember, 
vibrates  256  times  in  a second,  the  length  of  the 
sonorous  wave  which  it  produces  being , therefore, 
4 feet  4 inches." — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  69,  172. 

Thus  we  have  the  definite  proof  that  a 
tone  having  384  vibrations,  or  propagating 
that  many  waves  in  a second,  has  an  actual 
wave-length  of  2 feet  and  u inches;  and 
if  another  pitch  of  tone  happens  to  be  com- 
posed of  256  waves  in  a second,  its  wave- 
length is  literally  “4  feet  4 inches”  “from 
condensation  to  condensation,”  or  from 
crest  to  crest. 

Now,  suppose  I should  ask  Professor 
Tyndall  to  tell  me  the  exact  or  even  ap- 
proximate amplitude  of  the  vibrating  air- 
particles  in  feet  or  inches  for  this  system 
of  waves  which  he  has  here  shown  to  have 
a determinate  wave-length  of  “4  feet  4 
inches,” — could  he  do  it?  I answer,  em- 
phatically, he  could  not,  and,  if  he  could, 
he  would  not  dare  to;  for  it  is  a notorious 
fact  that  though  these  writers  on  sound 
are  constantly  calculating  and  recording 
the  “wave-length,”  in  literal  “feet ” and 
“inches,”  of  tones  of  various  degrees  of 
pitch,  they  have  never  once,  in  all  their  turn- 
ings, so  much  as  intimated  even  the  approx- 
imate amplitude  or  width  of  swing  of  the 
air-particles  in  any  single  system  of  sound- 
waves! The  reason  for  this  strange  neglect 
is  plain  on  its  very  face,  of  which  the 
reader  will  soon  be  entirely  satisfied.  To 
name  any  definite  amplitude,  or  to  fix  upon 
any  determinate  distance  which  the  par- 
ticles constituting  a sound-wave  must  os- 
cillate “to  and  fro”  would  be  to  at  once 
annihilate  the  wave-theory  if  the  same 
amplitude  should  be  applied  to  a wave 
passing  through  a mass  of  rock  or  iron,  or 
any  other  substance  whose  motion,  if  it 
has  any,  can  be  seen ! Hence,  writers  on 
sound  invariably  speak  of  this  “amplitude” 
or  “excursion  to  and  fro”  in  a vague  and 


240 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


indefinite  way,  sometimes  intimating  that 
if  one  sound  is  twice  as  loud  as  another  it 
is  because  the  air-particles  constituting  the 
wave  have  twice  the  “width  of  swing”  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other;  then  again, 
when  vexed  with  the  problem  of  “super- 
position,” this  “excursion  to  and  fro”  be- 
comes “infinitesimal”!  I have  searched 
in  vain  through  every  work  on  sound 
within  my  reach,  to  find  one  single  instance 
where  physicists  dare  come  out  and  say, 
as  any  scientific  investigator  ought  to  say 
if  he  has  a consistent  theory  to  defend, 
how  many  inches  or  what  fraction  of  an 
inch  the  air-particles  travel  “to  and  fro” 
for  any  given  pitch  or  any  degree  of  in- 
tensity. Should  they  venture  to  commit 
themselves  on  this  subject,  the  reader 
must  see  that  such  a statement,  but  once 
recorded,  would  write  the  obituary  of  the 
wave-hypothesis. 

The  nearest  to  it  I have  been  able  to 
find  is  the  language  of  Professor  Helm- 
holtz in  speaking  of  tympanic  vibration, 
as  follows: — 

“In  this  transference  of  the  vibrations  of  the  air 
into  the  labyrinth,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  though 
the  particles  of  the  air  themselves  have  comparatively 
a large  amplitude  of  vibration , yet  their  density  is 
so  small  that  they  have  no  very  great  moment  of 
inertia.” — Sensations  of  Tone , p.  199. 

But  suppose  I should  ask  Professor 
Helmholtz  what  he  means,  in  inches  or  the 
fraction  thereof,  by  ‘‘''comparatively  a large 
amplitude  of  vibration ,”  he  would  be  as 
dumb  as  death!  Though  he  had  explicitly 
and  repeatedly  recorded  what  a “wave- 
length” is  in  feet  and  inches  for  every 
pitch  of  tone,  and  though  he  had  taught 
that  air-waves  and  water-waves  are  “essen- 
tially identical,”  “precisely  similar,”  and 
travel  “exactly  in  the  same  way,” — and 
though  an  investigator  with  a thousandth 
part  of  his  intelligence  could  not  help 
knowing  that  a system  of  water-waves  with 


an  ascertained  wave-length  of  “4  feet  4 
inches”  must  have  an  amplitude  of  at 
least  5 inches,  in  the  very  necessities  of 
wave-motion,  with  every  particle  consti- 
tuting the  waves  oscillating  to  and  fro 
that  distance, — yet  neither  he  nor  Professor 
Tyndall  ventures  an  application  of  this 
consistent  and  universal  law  to  these  hy- 
pothetic sound-waves  in  air,  because,  as 
before  intimated  (whether  they  thought  of 
it  or  not),  it  would  instantly  overthrow  the 
■wave-theory  of  sound  if  the  same  rule 
should  be  applied  to  iron,  wood,  water,  or 
any  other  substance  whose  particles  could 
be  seen,  and  thus  ocularly  be  demonstrated 
not  to  move  at  all ! 

In  order  to  utterly  expose  the  absurdity 
of  the  theory  of  sound-waves  in  iron , and 
hence  in  any  other  substance,  including 
air , we  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  par- 
ticles of  iron  constituting  a wave  move 
only  the  hundredth  part  of  an  inch  “to  and 
fro  with  the  motions  of  pendulums,”  and 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  a mass  of  the  hardest 
steel,  permeated  by  a sound  constituted  of 
several  hundred  waves  in  a second,  would 
be  pulverized  to  impalpable  dust  in  less 
than  a minute  under  such  a grinding  pro- 
cess. This  is  the  reason,  in  a nutshell, 
why  it  would  not  do  for  “science”  to 
specify  any  definite  amplitude  for  the  air- 
particles  to  oscillate  to  and  fro,  or  even 
to  utter  one  syllable  on  this  subject  of  the 
proportionate  relation  of  amplitude  to 
wave-length,  which  so  unavoidably  pre- 
vails in  water-waves,  and  without  which 
they  have  no  existence! 

These  profound  scientific  investigators 
know  very  well  that  the  only  actual  wave- 
motion  which  can  be  seen  and  measured, 
and  which  they  declare  to  be  “precisely 
similar”  to  sound-waves,  is  governed  by 
an  unvarying  law  of  proportion,  just  as  I 
have  stated  it  to  be,  and  that  waves  of 
water  could  not  exist  at  all  unless  this 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


241 


ratio  of  about  1 to  10  were  maintained 
between  the  amplitude  or  width  of  swing 
of  the  wave-particles  and  the  measurable 
wave-length  from  crest  to  crest.  Yet  know- 
ing all  this,  as'  they  must,  if  they  possess 
intelligence  qualifying  them  to  write  on 
any  scientific  subject,  and  telling  their 
readers  at  the  same  time,  as  they  do,  that 
such  water-waves  are  “essentially  iden- 
tical” with  sound-waves,  they  appear  to 
have  studiously  avoided,  in  all  their  writ- 
ings on  the  subject,  ever  giving  even  a 
hint  as  to  the  probable  distance  traveled 
to  and  fro  by  the  particles  constituting  a 
sound-wave,  though  scores  of  times  re- 
cording the  actual  wave-length  in  feet  and 
inches!  I leave  the  reader  to  characterize 
this  kind  of  “science”  as  it  deserves. 

The  fact  is,  physicists  have  supposed 
this  hypothesis  of  “wave-length” — so  easily 
deduced  from  the  number  of  vibrations  of 
a sounding  body  in  a second,  by  dividing 
it  into  the  observed  velocity  of  sound — to 
be  a harmless  piece  of  mechanical  calcu- 
lation, which  would  assist  in  giving  form 
and  definiteness  to  the  wave-theory  with- 
out endangering  its  existence  or  being 
liable  to  be  turned  against  it;  though  even 
this  will  soon  be  seen  to  be  a fatal  mistake. 
So  long  as  “wave-length”  alone  was  in- 
volved, the  problem  seemed  amiable  and 
safe.  A definite  and  measurable  amplitude , 
however,  or  even  an  approximate  length 
of  “excursion  to  and  fro”  of  the  wave- 
particles,  in  literal  feet  and  inches,  had  no 
such  an  inoffensive  look  to  these  sage  in- 
vestigators! They  evidently  saw  the  faint 
outlines  of  a cat  of  considerable  propor- 
tions concealed  within  this  scientific  meal- 
tub  of  wave-amplitude;  and,  like  the  in- 
telligent old  rat  in  the  fable,  intuitively 
concluded  to  keep  at  a respectful  distance, 
acquiescing  in  his  general  opinion  that 
“caution  is  the  parent  of  safety.”  They 
saw,  in  plain  language,  if  they  should  allow 


their  “science”  to  extend  far  enough  to 
commit  the  vital  act,  and  thus  chain  them 
even  to  as  small  an  amplitude  as  the  hun- 
dredth part  of  an  inch  for  the  “excursion 
to  and  fro”  of  the  air-particles  in  a wave- 
length of  “4  feet  4 inches,”  that  it  would 
necessarily  and  at  once  involve  the  same 
length  of  “excursion  to  and  fro”  of  the 
z’/wz-particles  .11  the  passage  of  an  iron 
sound-wave  of  the  same  length,  which 
would  be  on  its  face  too  preposterous  a 
supposition  even  for  this  unspeakably  im- 
practicable theory.  Hence,  the  safest  way 
appeared  to  be  to  circle  all  around  the 
meal-tub,  but  never  to  directly  approach 
it, — to  talk  vaguely  all  around  this  ugly- 
looking  question  of  “amplitude”  and  this 
so-called  “excursion  to  and  fro,”  and  in  a 
non-committal  kind  of  way  speak  of  “wave- 
particles”  as  having  “comparatively  a large 
amplitude  of  vibration”  and  of  their  swing- 
ing “to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pen- 
dulums,” and  all  this;  but  not  to  perpe- 
trate the  fatal  deed  of  recording  the  exact 
or  even  approximate  distance  this  “excur- 
sion to  and  fro”  signifies  in  any  single  in- 
stance! This  was  a wise  policy  in  physi- 
cists, if  even  a cowardly  one;  but  not  wise 
enough,  as  the  sequel  will  soon  show. 

Why  have  not  physicists  come  out  frank- 
ly, as  candid  scientific  investigators,  and 
said  that  “since  the  only  wave-motion  we 
can  see  and  measure  has  an  unvarying 
proportion  of  amplitude  to  wave-length 
of  about  1 to  10,  it  would  seem  that  sound- 
waves, if  they  occur  at  all,  ought  to  have 
a similar  proportion,  or  else  they  are  not 
waves  in  the  proper  sense,  since  they  should 
be  essentially  identical.  And  as  any  ap- 
preciable amplitude  in  iron  or  other  solid 
body  is  out  of  the  question,  even  to  the  ex- 
tent of  a proportion  of  1 to  1,000,000,  not- 
withstanding sound  must  necessarily  travel 
through  it  on  the  same  principle  as  through 
air,  it  would  seem  unavoidable  that  some 


242 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


other  law  than  wave-motion  must  be  re- 
sorted to  in  accounting  for  the  radiation, 
propagation,  and  conduction  of  sound.” 
Such  a fair  and  candid  statement  of  the 
case  as  this  on  the  part  of  Professors 
Helmholtz  and  Tyndall  would  have  been 
worthy  of  the  cause  of  scientific  research, 
and  would  at  once  have  commanded  the 
respect  of  the  world.  Instead  of  this, 
however,  knowing  as  they  must  know  that 
all  water-waves  necessarily  have  an  ampli- 
tude of  about  one  tenth  of  their  wave- 
length, and  knowing  at  the  same  time  that 
so-called  sound-waves  in  iron  or  any  other 
visible  substance  are  destitute  of  all  per- 
ceptible amplitude,  or  any  motion  what- 
ever to  and  fro  of  their  particles,  yet  they 
Co  on  assuming  the  wave-theorv  of  sound 
as  established,  while  flatly  telling  their 
readers  that  sound-waves  are  ‘ essentially 
identical”  with  and  ‘ precisely  similar”  to 
undulations  on  the  surface  of  a body  cf 
water!  Candor  compels  me  to  say  that 
this  is  a fair  specimen  of  that  boasted 
“science”  which  is  to  revolutionize  the 
world  and  overthrow  religion! 

Put  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  enor- 
mity of  this  “scientific”  idea  of  “wave- 
length” in  the  passage  of  sound  through 
different  substances.  The  more  startling 
feature  of  the  stupendous  fallacy  is  yet  to 
come. 

We  have  just  seen,  as  quoted  from  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall,  that  a tone  with  256  vibra- 
tions to  the  second  has  a wave-length  in 
air  of  “4  feet  4 inches.”  But  what  would 
be  the  wave-length  of  this  same  pitch  of 
tone  passing  through  a mass  of  iron ? Did 
physicists  ever  think  of  this?  If  they  did, 
they  must  have  done  so  with  their  mental 
eves  shut,  and  their  reasoning  faculties 
half  stupefied,  or  they  would  have  at  once 
realized  its  ruinous  effects  upon  the  wave- 
theory.  Such  a tone  passing  through  iron 
would  have  a wave-length  seventeen  times 


as  great  as  in  air,  or  just  seventy-three  feet 
eight  inches  from  crest  to  crest!  Are  such 
iron-waves  reasonable  or  possible? 

The  reason  for  this  increased  wave- 
length in  iron  is  plain.  Sound  passes 
through  iron  with  a velocity  seventeen  times 
greater  than  through  air;  and  hence  the 
first  sound-wave  leaving  an  instrument 
held  against  a mass  of  iron  must  neces- 
sarily travel  seventeen  times  further  be- 
fore the  second  wave  starts  than  it  would 
have  done  in  air.  Hence,  sound-waves  in 
iron  are  necessarily  seventeen  times  as 
long  from  crest  to  crest, or, as  these  learned 
physicists  prefer  it,  “from  condensation  to 
condensation,  or  from  rarefaction  to  rare- 
faction.” 

I am  not  guessing  at  these  data  when  I 
say  that  sound  passes  through  iron  with 
seventeen  times  greater  velocity  than 
through  air.  Professor  Tyndall  says: — 

“The  velocity  of  sound  in  water  is  more  than 
four  times  its  velocity  in  air.  The  velocity  cf  sound 
in  iron  is  seventeen  times  its  velocity  in  air.  The 
velocity  of  sound  along  the  fiber  of  pine  wood  is 
ten  times  its  velocity  in  air.” — Lectures  on  Sound , 
p.  47. 

But  now  we  reach  the  culmination  of 
this  enormous  fallacy.  The  low  E of  the 
double  bass  has  40  vibrations  to  the  second, 
which,  divided  into  1120  feet,  the  velocity 
of  sound  in  air, gives  its  atmospheric  wave- 
length as  28  feet  exactly.  By  holding  this 
instrument  against  a mass  of  iron,  there- 
fore, and  allowing  its  sound-waves  to  pass 
through  it,  traveling  as  they  necessarily  do 
seventeen  times  faster  than  in  air,  these 
iron-waves  are  found  to  have  the  pro- 
digious length  of  f our  hundred  and  seventy- 
six  feet  from  crest  to  crest ! Does  any  man 
in  his  senses  believe  the  existence  of  such 
iron-waves  possible,  I care  not  how  small 
the  amplitude  or  so-called  “excursion  to 
and  fro”  of  these  iron-particles  may  be? 
If  he  does  not  believe  it,  then  he  does  not 
believe  in  the  wave-theory  of  sound  at  all; 


Chai*.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


243 


for  this,  as  every  tyro  in  science  knows, 
is  just  as  true  as  any  other  part  of  the 
theory. 

Thus  ends  all  this  courageous  talk  of 
Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  about 
the  actual  “ wave-length ” of  determinate 
sounds  in  feet  and  inches,  which  looked 
so  harmless  on  paper,  and  appeared  in  the 
distance  to  be  nothing  but  meal;  but  which 
has  turned  out  to  be  one  of  the  most  de- 
structive and  prodigious  cats  ever  seen  in 
science! 

The  serious  part  of  the  trouble,  how- 
ever, for  the  wave-theory  is  still  in  abey- 
ance. Amplitude  will  not  down  at  the 
wish  or  bidding  of  any  physicist.  It  asserts 
its  claim  to  recognition  and  its  right  to 
oscillate  “to  and  fro”  in  every  wave,  of 
whatever  substance  constituted,  and  re- 
fuses to  be  lugged  clandestinely,  at  the 
behest  of  Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz, 
and  Mayer,  into  incompatible  relationship 
with  pretended  waves,  which  are  a bald 
scientific  sham.  It  will  not  allow  its  iden- 
tity to  be  ignored  or  obscured.  These 
assumed  iron  sound-waves,  having  an  in- 
disputable wave-length,  according  to  the 
current  theory  of  sound,  of  four  hundred 
and  seventy-six  feet,  as  every  physicist  will 
at  once  admit,  which  are  “essentially  iden- 
tical” with  water-waves  and  move  “ex- 
actly in  the  same  way,”  must  necessarily 
have  an  amplitude  of  corresponding  pro- 
portion to  wave-length,  the  same  as  in 
water,  if  they  exist  at  all;  and  the  iron- 
particles  constituting  these  enormous  bil- 
lows must  therefore  make  a proportionate 
“excursion  to  and  fro”  as  in  the  case  of 
water-waves  of  similar  length,  or  they  are 
not  “essentially  identical”  with  them,  can 
not  be  “precisely  similar,”  and  do  not 
propagate  themselves  “exactly  in  the  same 
way”! 

To  admit  the  existence  of  such  iron 
sound-waves  476  feet  long  from  crest  to 


crest,  which  are  “essentially  identical” 
with  water-waves,  and  then  quietly  ignore 
or  explicitly  deny  all  practical  amplitude, 
when  it  is  well  known  that  no  water-wave 
can  exist  at  all  without  a visible  and  meas- 
urable amplitude  proportioned  to  its  length  , 
as  about  1 to  10,  would  be  a quibble  and 
trick  unworthy  of  science,  and  only  sup- 
posable  in  a pettifogging  barrister  in  case 
of  some  desperate  extremity. 

Hence,  we  reach  the  logical  mechanical 
conclusion  that  sound-waves  from  the  low 
E of  the  double  bass,  passing  through  a 
mass  of  iron  with  a wave-length  of  476 
feet,  must  of  necessity  have  an  amplitude, 
making  the  proportion  as  1 to  10, of  47  feet 
from  crest  to  sinus;  or, in  other  words, the 
particles  of  iron  constituting  the  entire 
mass  permeated  by  the  sound  must  keep 
up  an  “excursion  to  and  fro”  a distance 
of  47  feet,  making  40  of  these  complete 
oscillations  every  second! 

If  there  was  anything  strained,  exagger- 
ated, or  unfair,  about  this  argument,  or  the 
slightest  misrepresentation  of  the  teaching 
of  physicists,  or  misstatement  as  to  the 
laws  and  principles  of  science  involved, 
it  would  certainly  be  a great  relief  to  Pro- 
fessors Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  in  this 
terrible  ordeal  of  their  favorite  theory. 
But  even  this  poor  consolation  is  denied 
them.  They  are  compelled  to  stand  awe- 
struck and  speechless  in  the  presence  of 
these  prodigious  sonorous  billows  per- 
meating a mass  of  iron  four  hundred  and 
seventy-six  feet  lotig  “from  condensation 
to  condensation,”  and  forty-seven  feet  high 
from  the  top  of  the  compressed  ridge  to 
the  bottom  of  the  rarefied  furrow,  with  all 
the  iron-particles  composing  the  mass 
rushing  “to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of 
pendulums”!  To  deny  the  existence  of 
such  iron-waves,  at  least  476  feet  long,  is 
to  deny  the  truth  of  the  wave-theory  al- 
together, either  as  relates  to  air  or  any 


244 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


other  substance;  while  to  deny  this  pro- 
portion of  amplitude  or  “width  of  swing” 
of  47  feet  in  billows  having  such  an  ad- 
mitted wave-length  is  for  Professors  Tyn- 
dall and  Helmholtz  to  repudiate  their  own 
language,  and  proclaim  to  the  world  that 
there  is  no  sort  of  resemblance  between 
water-waves  and  so-called  sound-waves, 
instead  of  them  being  “essentially  iden- 
tical,” “precisely  similar,”  and  traveling 
“exactly  in  the  same  way.” 

The  question  of  questions  on  this  sub- 
ject,then, is,  will  these  eminent  authorities, 
in  view  of  such  overwhelming  facts,  aban- 
don the  wave-theory  of  sound  as  a prac- 
tical and  self-evident  absurdity, and  accept 
in  its  place  the  beautiful  and  every  way 
consistent  hypothesis  of  substantial  cor- 
puscular emissions?  We  shall  see. 

But  we  are  not  yet  done  with  this  ques- 
tion of  amplitude.  No  physicist,  after  his 
attention  is  called  to  the  question,  will 
pretend  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  the 
calculation  here  made  as  to  such  sound- 
waves in  iron  having  an  actual  wave-length 
of  476  feet  from  “condensation  to  conden- 
sation,” or  from  “crest  to  crest,”  if  the 
phrase  suits  better;  that  is,  if  the  mass  of 
iron  is  large  enough.  Either  Professor 
Tyndall  or  Helmholtz  would  admit  at 
once,  if  asked  by  any  one,  that,  according 
to  the  principles  of  the  wave-theory,  the 
sound  of  the  low  E of  the  double  bass 
would  have  the  wave-length  in  iron  just 
as  given  in  my  calculation.  But  while  ad- 
mitting this, what  would  they  or  could  they 
say  about  amplitude ? They  would  un- 
questionably be  obliged  to  admit  some 
amplitude,  or  evidently  they  would  not  be 
waves  at  all, since  manifestly  a water-wave 
without  amplitude  would  be  without  crest 
or  furrow,  and  hence  a nonentity. 

Professor  Tyndall  could  not  get  away 
from  his  own  words,  already  quoted,  even 
if  he  wished  to,  that  “ during  the  passage  of 


the  wave  every  particle  concerned  in  its  trans- 
mission makes  only  a smalt  excursion  to  and 
fro,”  and  that  “the  length  of  this  excursion 
is  called  the  amplitude  of  the  vibration.” — 
Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  44. 

We  must  constantly  bear  in  mind  that 
there  can  be  but  one  mode  of  sonorous 
propagation  through  any  substance,  ac- 
cording to  the  wave-theory,  and  that  is 
wave-motion, — that  while  waves  on  the 
surface  of  a body  consist  of  crests  and 
furrows,  waves  in  the  interior  of  a mass, 
whether  it  be  air,  iron,  or  any  other  sub- 
stance, have  been  defined  over  and  over 
again  by  these  writers  as  consisting  of 
“condensations  and  rarefactions”  of  the 
materials  constituting  the  waves,  while 
these  again  have  been  as  clearly  described 
as  the  alternate  squeezing  of  the  particles 
more  closely  together  and  separating  of  them 
more  widely  apart,  thus  causing  this  “small 
excursion  to  and  fro”  which  constitutes 
the  “amplitude  of  the  vibration,”  making 
it  the  same  practically,  so  far  as  motion 
and  amplitude  are  concerned,  as  if  the 
waves  were  produced  on  the  surface  of  the 
body,  and  took  the  ordinary  form  of  crests 
and  troughs.  Hence,  an  iron  sound-wave, 
whether  on  the  surface  of  the  mass  as  a 
“crest  and  sinus,”  or  formed  as  a “con- 
densation and  rarefaction”  in  its  interior, 
must  possess  the  same  “amplitude  of  vi- 
bration,” “width  of  swing,”  or  “excursion 
to  and  fro”  of  the  iron  wave-particles  as 
a similar  wave  would  have  in  air,  or  there 
is  no  consistency  nor  congruity  in  the 
theory,  and  all  this  talk  about  “conden- 
sation,” “rarefaction,”  “excursion  to  and 
fro,”  “width  of  swing,”  “amplitude,”  or 
even  “wave-motion,”  is  an  imposition  upon 
the  scientific  public. 

I now  ask  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz,— and  hereby  send  my  inquiry  across 
the  Atlantic  Ocean, — if  the  wave-theory 
be  true,  and  if  there  be  such  a thing  pos- 


Chav.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


245 


sible  as  a sound-wave  in  any  substance, 
w/iat  is  the  amount  of  this  “amplitude  of  the 
vibration,”  or  the  length  of  this  “excursion 
to  and  fro,"  or  “width  of  swing”  of  the  par- 
ticles constituting  a sound-wave  in  iron? 
Answer  something,  if  it  is  but  the  millionth 
of  an  inch!  Don’t, for  the  sake  of  science, 
be  non-committal  any  longer!  Silence  and 
candor  are  wholly  incompatible  on  such  a 
vital  question  as  this.  If  the  iron-particles 
move  at  all,  or  make  the  least  possible 
“excursion  to  and  fro,”  as  so  distinctly 
taught  by  the  Current  theory  of  sound,  say 
so;  and  if  they  do  not,  say  so;  and  then 
abandon  the  wave-theory ! I pause  for  a 
reply. 

But  the  reader,  I imagine, will  not  pause 
or  be  satisfied  to  wait  to  hear  from  the 
other  side  of  the  ocean.  He  wants  the 
matter  to  be  settled  at  once.  Hence,  I 
must  answer  for  Professors  Tyndall  and 
Helmholtz  till  they  shall  have  time  to 
speak  for  themselves.  My  answer  is  as 
follows:  This  assumed  amplitude  in  iron 
sound-waves,  or  this  so-called  “excursion  to 
and  fro ” of  the  particles  of  iron  constituting 
these  billows , is  practically  nothing,  and  they 
know  it!  That  is,  to  use  their  own  lan- 
guage when  closely  pressed,  it  is  “infini- 
tesimal,” if  it  is  anything  at  all,  since  the 
most  powerful  microscope  ever  constructed 
fails  to  reveal  the  slightest  molecular  move- 
ment in  a mass  of  iron,  or  any  other  solid 
or  liquid  substance,  permeated  by  the  in- 
tensest  sounds.  Hence,  it  is  within  the 
truth  to  say  that  these  supposititious  sound- 
waves are  absolutely  devoid  of  amplitude, 
and  therefore  are  not  waves  at  all ! 

Here  then,  reader,  according  to  this 
theory,  we  have  the  grand  scientific  (!) 
spectacle  of  iron  billows  with  an  actual 
and  admitted  “wave-length”  of  four  hun- 
dred and  seventy-six  feet,  and  no  amplitude  ! 
Yet  these  physicists  call  them  “waves”  with 
a license  unparalleled  for  its  absurdity!  | 


To  realize  the  enormous  character  of 
the  fallacy  here  being  exposed,  the  reader 
has  only  to  imagine,  if  he  possibly  can, 
ocean  billows  (which  are  always  referred  to 
by  writers  on  this  subject  as  appropriate 
illustrations  of  sound-waves)  having  the 
prodigious  wave-length  of  four  hundred 
and  seventy-six  feet  from  crest  to  crest,  and 
a depth  of  furrow — well,  say,  of  one  inch! 
Though  this  would  be  a ridiculous  carica- 
ture on  wave-motion,  yet  such  furrows 
would  be  a million  times  deeper  than  the 
furrows  of  these  boasted  sound-waves  in 
iron,  if  they  possess  any  amplitude  at  all, 
notwithstanding  their  acknowledged  wave- 
length of  nearly  a tenth  of  a mile!  And 
knowing  all  this  to  be  true,  as  we  must 
assume  to  have  been  the  case  with  these 
representative  scientists  of  the  age,  how 
can  we  account  for  the  reiterated  language 
already  quoted  in  comparing  sound-waves 
and  water-waves — “ essentially  identical 
“ precisely  similar,  moving  “ exactly  in  the 
same  way,”  while  one  lacks  amplitude,  the 
only  thing,  in  fact,  which  constitutes  a 
wave  in  any  substance? 

But  if  such  a pitch  of  sound  as  I have 
assumed  passes  through  iron  in  this  way, 
having  an  actual  wave-length  of  476  feet 
and  a depth  of  “amplitude”  so  “infinites- 
imal” that  the  most  powerful  magnifying 
glass  fails  to  reveal  it,  then  how  much,  I 
ask, does  it  lack  of  a straight  course?  If  a 
line  were  drawn  476  feet  so  nearly  straight 
that  a powerful  microscope  could  not  re- 
veal the  least  deflection,  is  there  a mathe- 
matician on  earth  who  would  not,  without 
a moment’s  hesitation,  pronounce  that  a 
right  line?  Am  I not  justified,  therefore, 
when  I assert  that  so  far  from  sound  pass- 
ing through  rock,  iron,  water, wood, or  even 
air,  by  wave-motion  (which  has  no  exist- 
ence at  all  without  amplitude),  its  route  can 
only  be  a direct  line? 

And  if  it  is  practically  and  mathemat- 


246 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


ically  a straight  line , it  is  exactly  what 
the  corpuscular  hypothesis  requires  and 
teaches, namely,  that  sound  passes  through 
all  bodies  in  the  form  of  sonorous  pulses 
radiated  from  the  sounding  instrument  in 
straight  lines , and  that  these  primary  sys- 
tems of  corpuscles  radiate  secondary  sys- 
tems also  in  straight  lines, these  others, and 
so  on,  permeating  all  parts  of  the  conduct- 
ing medium,  whether  that  be  air,  water, 
wood,  or  iron.  Which,  I now  appeal  to 
the  intelligence  of  the  reader,  is  the  more 
consistent  and  rational  system  ? That 
which  encounters  no  contradiction  and 
no  absurdity,  or  that  which  is  only  con- 
tradiction and  absurdity  from  beginning 
to  end? — which  admits  sound-waves  in 
iron  to  be  476  feet  long,  telling  us  at  the 
same  time  that  “sound-waves”  move  “ex- 
actly in  the  same  way"  as  water-waves,  are 
“ essentially  identical"  and  “ precisely  sim- 
ilar” but  which  turn  out,  on  examination, 
to  have  no  amplitude  (the  only  thing  that 
really  constitutes  awave),not  even  amount- 
ing to  the  millionth  of  an  inch!  I might 
well  stop  here,  and  risk  the  result  of  this 
investigation  without  submitting  another 
point,  letting  the  fate  of  the  wave-theory 
hinge  upon  this  single  argument.  But  I 
have  an  abundance  of  other  considera- 
tions equally  pertinent  and  unanswerable, 
some  of  which  will  be  even  more  surprising 
to  the  unscientific  reader. 

One  would  think  that  a competent  sci- 
entific investigator  ought  to  see  at  a glance 
that  the  physical  motion  of  a gross  body, 
like  iron,  if  too  small  to  be  observed  when 
the  eye  is  aided  by  the  microscope,  must 
be  too  small  to  sensibly  affect  any  other  sense- 
nerve.  Surely  the  eye  is  the  most  sensi- 
tively acute  of  all  the  senses  in  perceiving 
that  which  comes  within  its  proper  scope, 
such  as  the  motions  of  a physical  visible 
body.  It  is  a fact  undeniable  that  a move- 
ment a thousand  times  smaller  than  could 


be  possibly  recognized  by  touch  in  the 
most  sensitive  portion  of  the  human  or- 
ganism, could  be  readily  seen  under  a 
powerful  magnifying  glass.  Is  it  reason- 
able, then,  that  the  motion  of  a visible 
body  (for  it  can  be  only  motion  according 
to  the  wave-theory)  which  eludes  the  re- 
cognition of  this  most  searching  sense, 
thus  aided,  should  address  and  impress 
another  sense  entirely  unaided,  which  is 
surely  not  so  acutely  adapted  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  motion  in  physical  bodies  as 
either  sight  or  touch?  It  must  seem,  there- 
fore, viewed  from  every  possible  stand- 
point, unphilosophical  and  in  violation  of 
all  true  science  to  designate  as  wave-motion 
a supposed  movement  in  the  particles  of 
a gross  physical  body,  which  has  never 
been  observed  under  the  strongest  mag- 
nifying power,  particularly  when  such  hy- 
pothetic movement  is  unnecessary  for  the 
solution  of  any  problem  in  science,  and 
especially  in  view  of  the  probable  truth, 
not  to  say  beautiful  consistency,  of  the 
corpuscular  hypothesis,  which  necessarily 
involves  the  propagation  of  sound  in 
straight  lines  through  all  bodies,  and  which 
the  wave-theory  is  at  last  compelled  to 
admit. 

I now  propose,  in  concluding  this  phase 
of  the  argument,  to  show  that  physicists, 
in  thus  referring  to  water-waves  as  illus- 
trative of  sound-waves  in  air,  have  neces- 
sarily and  unmistakably  abandoned  sound- 
waves altogether,  either  in  air  or  in  any 
other  conducting  medium ! This  surely 
will  be  more  than  these  astute  writers  on 
science  contracted  for  in  their  careful 
analysis  of  water-waves,  and  their  studied 
efforts  to  show  how  the  superposition  of 
tiny  wavelets,  traversing  the  surface  of 
large  rollers,  corresponds  to  the  super- 
position of  air-waves,  constituting  sound 
and  making  up  the  “algebraical  sum”  of 
their  different  systems  of  wave-motion. 


ClIAl'.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


247 


The  truth  is,  these  writers,  in  their  enthu- 
siasm on  the  subject  of  air-waves  as  the 
cause  of  sound-propagation,  and  in  their 
usual  habit  of  jumping  at  conclusions,  ap- 
pear to  have  rushed  headlong,  so  to  speak, 
not  stopping  to  think  where  their  argu- 
ment would  lead  them,  or  what  would  be 
the  consequence  when  their  reasoning 
should  force  them  up  against  a mass  of 
rock  or  iron,  or  into  a body  of  water,  which 
admits  of  palpable  and  visible  investiga- 
tion. 

A more  reckless  and  short-sighted  course 
of  argumentation  perhaps  was  never  adopt- 
ed or  recorded  even  in  the  crudest  scien- 
tific speculations  of  any  half-civilized  phi- 
losopher of  ancient  or  modern  times.  Air 
being  wholly  invisible  and  almost  intan- 
gible, these  eminent  investigators  have  felt 
safe  in  bravely  assuming  its  particles  as 
oscillating  “to  and  fro  with  the  motions 
of  pendulums,”  and  as  having  “compara- 
tively a large  amplitude  of  vibration,”  and 
all  this,  because  no  one  could  see  to  the 
contrary,  and  therefore  they  seemed  in- 
tuitively to  think  that  no  one  could  con- 
tradict them  ! But  this  superficiality,  like 
that  of  the  Ptolemaic  philosophers,  has  at 
last  to  meet  its  fate,  since  this  reasoning 
explodes  itself,  as  we  have  seen,  the  mo- 
ment the  “ large  amplitude  of  vibration" 
and  “excursion  to  and  fro”  are  carried 
into  a mass  of  visible  iron,  having  sound- 
waves just  seventeen  times  longer  than  in 
air,  and  consequently  which  should  have 
seventeen  times  this  “large  amplitude  of 
vibration,”  according  to  all  laws  of  sym- 
metrical proportion  governing  water- 
waves,  which  are  so  repeatedly  claimed 
to  be  “essentially  identical”  and  to  move 
“exactly  in  the  same  way”! 

But  here  comes,  as  just  intimated,  what 
I consider  the  utter  abandonment  of  the 
idea  of  sound-waves,  either  in  air  or  in 
any  other  substance.  When  Professors 


Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  were  so  con- 
fidently illustrating  sound-waves  in  air  by 
the  action  of  “water-waves”  which  were 
“essentially  identical,”  they  appeared  ab- 
solutely to  forget,  for  the  time  being,  that 
sound  traveled  through  water  at  all!  This 
unfortunate  slip  of  memory  now  proves 
ruinous  to  their  theory,  since  a sound-wave 
in  air  being  of  course  and  admittedly  noth- 
ing more  nor  less  than  an  air-wave,  it  fol- 
lows therefore  that  a sound-wave  in  water 
must  necessarily  be  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  a water-wave ! There  is  no  escape 
from  this.  If  a sound-wave  in  water  does 
not  constitute  a water-wave , in  the  true 
and  literal  sense,  then  it  becomes  demon- 
strative proof  that  a sound-wave  in  air 
does  not  constitute  an  air-wave  at  all,  and 
consequently  the  bottom  falls  out  of  the 
wave-theory.  But  as  universal  observation 
assures  us  that  a sound,  however  intense, 
passing  through  water  does  not  produce 
the  slightest  undulatory  effect,  or  stir  the 
particles  of  water  through  which  it  passes, 
it  follows  that  wave-motion  in  both  air  and 
water  has  broken  down  ! 

Every  one  knows  what  a “water-wave” 
is,  and  that  it  has  no  double  or  doubtful 
meaning.  Fortunately  'mivaterwz  do  not 
need  these  mysterious  and  almost  mean- 
ingless “condensations  and  rarefactions” 
so  essential  to  the  wave-theory  in  fabricat- 
ing hypothetic  air-waves  in  the  midst  of 
the  “aerial  ocean,”  which  seems  to  grow 
out  of  the  fact  that  we  can  not  get  at  the 
surface  of  the  atmosphere.  In  water  we 
have  an  actual,  tangible, ponderable  liquid, 
with  a visible  surface  on  which  “water- 
waves”  are  easily  produced  and  visibly 
observed.  And  hence,  if  Professors  Tyn- 
dall and  Helmholtz  speak  of  a “water- 
wave,”  we  know  exactly  what  they  mean, 
namely,  an  undulation  on  the  surface  hav- 
ing a visible  crest  and  sinus, with  an  actual 
amplitude, which  oscillation  to  and  fro  has 


248 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


invariably  a proportion  of  about  i to  io  of 
wave-length.  Hence,  when  they  assure  us, 
as  they  so  often  have  done,  that  a sound- 
wave in  air  is  “essentially  identical”  with 
a “water-wave,”  we  have  to  understand,  as 
a matter  of  course,  that  a sound-wave  in 
water  is  also  “essentially  identical”  with  a 
“ water-wave" ! This  must  be  so,  or  there 
is  no  meaning  in  the  scientific  teaching 
of  these  physicists.  But  as  no  “water- 
wave”  is  produced  by  sound  passing 
through  it,  even  under  microscopic  ob- 
servation,it  shatters  the  whole  wave-theory, 
and  proves  that  air-waves , as  the  result  of 
sound,  are  just  as  fallacious  as  u water- 
waves."  Can  anything  be  more  conclusive 
than  this? 

Physicists  will  hardly  venture  to  resort 
to  the  disingenuous  quibble  that  there  are 
two  distinct  kinds  of  water-waves, — one 
kind  visible  and  the  other  invisible , — one 
kind  with  crests,  furrows,  wave-lengths,  and 
amplitude,  the  other  kind  with  wave-lengths 
but  with  neither  crests,  furrows,  nor  ampli- 
tude7 and  that  these  invisible,  inscrutable, 
and  crestless  water-waves  are  the  ones  pro- 
duced by  sound,  while  the  visible  and  meas- 
urable waves  are  the  kind  produced  by 
throwing  a stone  upon  the  surface  of  a 
piece  of  calm  water!  If  they  really  should 
venture  to  assume  any  other  class  of  water- 
waves  than  visible  ones,  such  as  everybody 
understands  by  the  term  “water-wave,”  it 
would  have  been  a good  thing  in  their  re- 
peated use  of  the  term  in  their  works  on 
sound  to  prefix  some  sort  of  qualifying 
w'ord  when  speaking  of  “water-waves,”  that 
their  readers  might  not  be  at  a loss  to 
know  which  class  of  waves  they  referred 
to!  For  example,  when  speaking  of  a 
sound-wave  in  air  being  “essentially  iden- 
tical” with  a “water-wave,”  and  traveling 
“exactly  in  the  same  way,”  the  reader  is 
obliged  to  ask,  “Which  class  of  ‘water- 
waves’? — those  with  crests  and  troughs,  or 


those  without?”  By  having  neglected  this 
precaution  they  naturally  leave  us  to  infer 
that  there  is  but  one  class  of  “water-waves,” 
as  every  one  understands,  and  as  they 
themselves  know!  In  fact,  it  is  little  less 
than  inexcusable  negligence,  if  these  phys- 
icists ever  intended  to  teach  more  than 
one  kind  of  “water-waves, ’’that  they  should 
have  studiously  kept  it  to  themselves,  and 
never  once  given  an  intimation  of  such 
crestless  and  invisible  billows  in  water,  with 
wave-lengths  from  io  to  ioo  feet! 

Seriously, this  convenient  invisible  dodge 
can  be  played  in  air  to  almost  any  extent, 
since  the  motion  of  its  particles  is  not  ob- 
servable; but  it  will  turn  out  about  as 
much  of  a scientific  failure  when  attempted 
in  water  as  it  has  done  in  iron,  with  billows 
having  a wave-length  of  476  feet  but  with 
an  amplitude  so  small  that  the  most  pow- 
erful microscope  fails  to  reveal  a trace  of 
it!  Such  invisible  shifts  will  prove  also 
too  shallow  in  water.  It  is  a well-known 
fact  that  sound  travels  through  water  with 
over  four  times  the  velocity  as  through  air, 
and  hence  with  over  four  times  the  wave- 
length from  crest  to  crest.  Yet  not  a sem- 
blance of  wave-motion  or  any  other  motion 
can  be  detected  in  water  from  the  action 
of  any  sound  passing  through  it,  even  with 
the  aid  of  the  microscope,  notwithstanding 
a sound-wave  is  “essentially  identical”  with 
a water-wave,  which  always  has  an  ampli- 
tude or  a “to  and  fro”  motion  of  its  par- 
ticles an  actual  distance  equaling  one  tenth 
of  the  wave-length. 

But  even  supposing  there  was  another 
class  of  “water-waves”  possible  as  the 
product  of  sound,  what  difference  could 
it  make  with  my  argument?  None  at  all, 
since  such  sound-waves  in  water  would 
still  be  “essentially  identical”  with  the 
visible  waves  caused  by  throwing  a stone 
upon  its  surface,  and  would  move  “exactly 
in  the  same  way”!  It  surely  would  do 


Chat.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


249 


the  wave-theory  no  good,  therefore,  to  re- 
sort to  such  hypothetic  “water-waves”  as 
being  produced  by  sound,  after  admitting 
that  they  are  “precisely  similar”  to  ‘ water- 
waves”  produced  by  a stone,  and  that  they 
are  propagated ‘ exactly  in  the  same  way.” 
That  “the  way  of  the  transgressor  is  hard” 
is  no  less  a truism  in  science  than  in  re- 
ligion ! 

To  show  that  sound  in  passing  through 
water  does  not  produce  the  slightest  wave- 
motion  in^the  interior  of  its  mass,  we  have 
only  to  take  a glass  jar  of  water  charged 
with  some  kind  of  coloring  matter  which 
will  float  through  it  in  granules,  and  then 
examine  it  with  a microscope  under  a 
strong  light,  while  holding  the  stem  of  a 
tuning-fork  in  the  water.  That  the  sound 
of  the  vibrating  fork  permeates  the  water 
and  passes  through  it  in  all  directions  is 
evident,  since  it  is  conducted  to  the  table 
on  which  the  jar  sits,  and  is  caused  to  ring 
out  by  its  resonance  with  augmented  vol- 
ume. Yet  the  particles  of  coloring  matter 
suspended  in  the  water  do  not  stir  nor  go 
through  the  least  perceptible  oscillation. 

We  see  none  of  Professor  Mayer’s  swing- 
ing “to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pen- 
dulums,” nor  of  Professor  Helmholtz’s 
“comparatively  large  amplitude  of  vibra- 
tion,” nor  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  “small 
excursion  to  and  fro”!  Yet  the  sound- 
waves produced  by  this  tuning-fork  in 
water  are  more  than  four  times  as  long  as 
the  waves  in  air  would  be  from  the  same 
fork,  according  to  the  wave-theory,  and 
hence  the  “excursion  to  and  fro”  in  water, 
if  there  is  any  such  excursion,  should  be 
over  four  times  as  large  as  in  air!  If  there 
is  any  truth  in  the  wave-theory,-  and  if 
sound  travels  through  water  by  means  of 
wave-motion,  why  do  not  the  floating  par- 
ticles in  the  water  permeated  by  sound 
show  some  sign  of  oscillation  ? 

It  is  true  a visible  circle  of  delicate 


waves  may  be  seen  on  the  surface  of  the 
water  of  the  jar  directly  around  the  fork; 
but,  as  I have  repeatedly  explained  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  this  is  purely  incidental, 
as  the  effect  of  the  tremulous  movement 
of  the  tuning-fork’s  stem,  and  not  as  the 
result  of  the  action  of  sound  at  all.  But 
since  these  learned  physicists  are  just 
about  superficial  enough,  as  proved  by 
their  general  investigations  on  this  subject, 
to  make  a point  of  this  diminutive  wave- 
motion  produced  by  the  stem  of  the  fork, 
I had  better  meet  it  in  advance,  and  once 
for  all,  in  a single  brief  paragraph,  as  fol- 
lows:— 

As  a proof  that  these  tiny  wavelets  are 
not  “sound-waves”  at  all,  let  us  suppose 
the  fork  to  have  one  hundred  vibrations 
in  a second.  By  actual  observation  the 
wavelets  sent  off  from  its  stem  over  the 
surface  of  the  water  are  found  to  have  a 
wave-length  of  not  over  an  eighth  of  an  inch 
from  crest  to  crest;  whereas,  if  they  were 
really  sound-waves,  or  even  “essentially 
identical”  with  them,  they  would  neces- 
sarily have  a wave-length  between  40  and 
50  feet  from  crest  to  crest  in  water,  or  n 
feet  4 inches  in  air,  as  every  physicist  at 
all  conversant  with  the  current  theory  well 
knows!  Thus,  the  only  plausible  argument 
or  appearance  of  one  in  favor  of  actual 
sound-waves  in  water  (for  which  the  theory 
is  indebted  to  my  own  experiment)  has 
been  ingloriously  exploded  in  advance! 

But  the  final  and  overwhelming  evidence 
that  “water-waves”  can  not,  by  any  pos- 
sibility, constitute  sound-waves,  or  be  the 
means  of  sonorous  propagation  in  water, 
is  drawn  from  the  fact  that  if  we  throw  a 
stone,  weighing  a pound,  for  example,  into 
a piece  of  calm  water,  its  waves  will  only 
travel  at  a velocity  of  three  feet  a second , 
as  ascertained  by  careful  observation  and 
measurement;  while  sound,  as  recently 
quoted  from  Professor  Tyndall  and  as  all 


250 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


authorities  agree,  travels  in  water  with  a 
velocity  of  fully  4,500  feet  a second,  or 
fifteen  hundred  limes  faster  than  visible 
water-waves! 

Is  it  reasonable  or  conceivable  that  one 
system  of  “water-waves,”  caused  by  a 
stone,  should  be  “essentially  identical” 
with  another  system  of  “water-waves” 
caused  by  a sound , and  that  both  systems 
should  be  propagated  “exactly  in  the  same 
way,”  while  one  system  travels  three  feet 
in  a second,  and  the  other  system  four  thou- 
sand five  hundred  feet  in  the  same  time ?— 
one  system  having  always  an  amplitude 
of  about  one  tenth  of  its  wave-length, while 
the  other  system,  though  it  may  have  the 
same  definite  wave-length  in  feet  and 
inches,  yet  has  no  amplitude  at  all? — one 
system  of  waves  being  visible  to  the  naked 
eye,  even  if  its  wave-length  be  only  the 
quarter  of  an  inch  from  crest  to  crest, 
while  the  other  system,  even  with  a wave- 
length of  over  a hundred  feet  can  not  be 
seen  at  all  under  the  magnifying  power  of 
the  microscope?  The  absurdity  of  the 
idea  glares  contemptuously  into  the  faces 
of  modern  physicists. 

Hence,  we  reach  the  most  demonstrative 
proof  that  sound  does  not  and  can  not 
travel  in  water  by  wave-motion  at  all,  since 
these  measurable  waves — the  only  class  of 
water-waves  ever  observed — have  but  the 
one  fifteen  hundredth  the  velocity  of  sound  ! 

If  these  candid  investigators  of  physical 
science  should  claim,  as  just  discussed, 
some  other  kind  of  water-waves  not  visible 
to  the  naked  eye,  or  even  by  the  aid  of  the 
microscope,  which  might  possibly  have  a 
greater  velocity  than  the  above,  or  travel 
more  than  three  feet  in  a second,  such  waves, 
as  already  shown,  would  evidently  do  their 
theory  no  good,  since  they  would  not  be 
sound-waves  at  all,  according  to  their  own 
repeated  statements,  unless  they  were  “ es- 
sentially identical"  with  visible  “ water- 


waves,”  and  traveled  “ exactly  in  the  same 
way" ! Thus,  the  closer  we  follow  up  this 
question,  and  the  more  rigidly  we  pin  down 
these  learned  authorities  to  their  own  vol- 
untary admissions,  the  more  hopelessly 
demoralized  the  wave-theory  becomes. 

The  conclusion  is  thus  unavoidable  that 
sound  produces  no  wave-motion  whatever, 
either  in  air,  water,  iron,  or  any  other  con- 
ducting medium,  whether  it  be  solid,  liquid, 
or  gaseous;  but  must  travel  through  what- 
ever medium  conducts  it  in  straight  lines, 
according  to  the  beautiful  and  consistent 
laws  and  principles  unfolded  and  enun- 
ciated by  the  corpuscular  hypothesis. 

I could  extend  this  argument,  based  on 
the  analogy  drawn  from  water-waves, — the 
only  basis  for  any  correct  scientific  know- 
ledge of  wave-motion, — but  I have  con- 
cluded to  reserve  the  most  crushing  of  all 
the  arguments  against  the  current  theory 
of  sound,  based  on  such  analogy,  as  a 
suitable  and  demonstrative  culmination  of 
this  monograph. 

In  view  of  facts  thus  hastily  passed  in 
review,  and  especially  in  view  of  sound- 
waves in  iron  476  feet  long  from  “conden- 
sation to  condensation,”  yet  without  am- 
plitude, according  to  the  teaching  of  phys- 
icists and  as  an  unavoidable  concomitant 
of  the  wave-theory,  it  becomes  impossible 
to  even  attempt  a rational  explanation  of 
the  marvelous  want  of  perspicacity  in  sci- 
entific investigators  which  has  not  per- 
mitted one  of  all  the  thousands  who  have 
studied  the  phenomena  of  sound  to  even 
suspect  the  manifest  fallacy  of  a theory  so 
fraught  with  impossibilities  and  absurd- 
ities. It  wholly  surpasses  comprehension 
that  among  the  greatest  analytical  think- 
ers the  world  has  ever  contained, — those 
particularly  accustomed  their  lives  long  td 
searching  and  critical  investigations, — not 
one  has  been  found  to  expose  the  laughable 
weakness  and  pitiable  puerilities  of  this 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


251 


hypothesis,  with  so  many  self-evident  im- 
practicabilities confronting  it,  which,  on 
their  bare  mention,  demonstrate  it  to  be 
one  of  the  most  enormous  scientific  errors 
of  this  or  any  other  age. 

In  presenting  these  sonorous  difficulties 
to  a scientific  friend — by  the  way,  a firm 
disciple  of  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz— he  promptly  confessed  the  absurd- 
ity of  actual  iron-waves,  with  “condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions”  and  a “small  ex- 
cursion to  ^rid  fro”  of  the  real  particles  of 
iron  throughout  the  “amplitude”  of  the 
wave-motion,  and  suggested,  as  a probable 
and  reasonable  way  to  escape  the  difficulty 
and  still  believe  in  the  wave-theory,  the 
supposition  that  it  might  be  the  air  in  the 
iron  which  served  as  the  undulatory  me- 
dium for  sound-propagation,  since  all 
bodies  are  porous,  and  contain  more  or 
less  air.  But  this  was  instantly  shown  to 
be  untenable  by  referring  to  Professor 
Tyndall’s  Lectures  on  Sound,  where  he  gives 
tables  showing  the  velocity  of  sound  in  all 
kinds  of  metal,  wood,  liquid,  and  gas,  ac- 
cording to  their  density  and  elasticity,  in 
contradistinction  to  its  velocity  in  air,  show- 
ing that  sound-waves  are  thus  admitted  to 
be  composed  of  iron,  rock,  wood,  water, 
and  gas,  when  passing  through  them,  just 
as  they  are  composed  of  air-particles  when 
passing  through  air! 

Besides,  if  it  was  air  in  the  iron  instead 
of  the  iron-particles  themselves  which 
constituted  the  sound-waves,  how  does  it 
happen  that  sound  travels  seventeen  times 
faster  in  iron  than  in  air,  as  calculated 
by  such  scientists  as  Newton,  Laplace, 
Chladni,  Savart,  Despretz,  Helmholtz,  and 
T yndall  ? (See  T yndall’s  Lectures  on  Sound, 
p.  39.)  As  all  these  substances  just  named 
are  placed  in  contrast  with  air,  each  trans- 
mitting sound-waves  with  a different  ve- 
locity, it  is  no  more  logical  or  reasonable 
to  claim  that  it  is  the  air  in  iron  which 


furnishes  the  undulatory  motion  for  sound 
than  to  suppose  it  to  be  the  air  in  hydrogen 
gas  which  meets  the  same  necessity,  since 
sound  passes  nearly  four  times  faster 
through  such  gas  than  through  air! 

But  this  attempted  evasion  is  utterly 
overthrown  by  the  fact  that  sound  passes 
through  water  from  which  all  air  has  been 
extracted  by  heat  with  four  times  the  ve- 
locity of  its  propagation  in  the  atmosphere, 
proving  that  sound-waves  in  any  solid  or 
liquid  body,  if  they  occur  at  all,  must  be 
constituted  of  the  absolute  particles  of 
such  conducting  medium. 

Thus  the  question  of  sound-propagation 
was  left  with  my  friend  in  a state  of  hope- 
less demoralization,  because  it  was  impos- 
sible, as  he  thought,  for  Tyndall  and 
Helmholtz  to  be  wrong,  and  it  was  equally 
impossible  for  sound  to  go  through  solid 
iron  in  waves,  with  “condensations  and 
rarefactions”  and  a “small  excursion  to 
and  fro”  of  all  the  iron-particles  compos- 
ing such  waves,  especially  such  inconceiv- 
able waves  as  those  required  by  the  theory 
— four  Imndred  and  seventy-six  feet  long 
from  “condensation  to  condensation”!  I 
left  him,  therefore,  with  the  incubus  of  an 
iron  billow  the  tenth  of  a mile  long,  having 
a crest  or  “condensation”  forty-seven  feet 
high,  pressing  on  his  mental  vision,  but 
with  a promise  to  candidly  investigate  the 
subject  and  report  at  our  next  meeting. 

To  my  surprise,  I found  him  at  the  next 
interview  cheerful  and  light-hearted,  hav- 
ing evidently  shaken  himself  free  from  the 
fearful  load  left  on  his  mind  a few  nights 
previously.  He  now  was  able,  he  declared, 
to  solve  the  problem  of  sound  passing 
through  iron  in  waves  of  any  required 
size  and  dimension  without  the  aid  of  air, 
and  without  the  fatal  and  pulverizing  ne- 
cessity of  the  “small  excursion  to  and  fro” 
of  the  iron-particles  constituting  the  wave. 
He  also  had  discovered,  he  asserted,  an 


252 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


important  solution  of  the  problem  of  sound 
passing  through  air  in  i'cal  waves,  which 
would  obviate  the  enormous  absurdity  of 
a locust  compressing  four  cubic  miles  of 
atmosphere  sufficiently  to  add  one  sixth 
to  the  velocity  of  sound,  thus  exerting  the 
energy  of  more  than  fifty  million  horses! 
With  astonishment  I awaited  the  unfold- 
ing of  the  new  hypothesis,  which  was  to 
save  the  wave-theory  from  hopeless  disas- 
ter and  give  a new  lease  of  life  to  a philo- 
sophical doctrine  which  I had,  as  I con- 
ceived, utterly  demolished. 

My  friend  then  proceeded  to  divulge 
the  important  secret  of  his  discovery, 
namely,  that  sound  passes  through  all  sub- 
stances, even  through  air,  by  means  of 
ethereal  undulations, — that  it  is  not  the 
air,  nor  the  iron,  nor  the  water,  nor  the 
gas,  which  is  thrown  into  waves  by  the 
action  of  sound,  but  the  ether  which  per- 
meates all  bodies,  and  which  constitutes 
the  undulatory  motions  which  we  term 
light  and  heat.  Hence,  he  contended 
earnestly  and  enthusiastically  that  there 
was  not  the  least  difficulty  in  a locust 
filling  four  square  miles  with  undulations 
of  this  substance,  which  was  probably  a 
thousand  million  times  less  dense  than 
the  most  attenuated  gas,  while  not  the 
least  absurdity  would  be  met  with  in  sound 
passing  through  iron, with  waves  a quarter 
of  a mile  long,  having  an  amplitude  of  a 
hundred  feet  if  necessary,  since  such  un- 
dulations, instead  of  disturbing  the  texture 
of  the  iron  in  the  slightest  degree,  were 
only  the  molecular  movements  of  that  ether 
which  circulates  freely  through  the  sub- 
stance of  a diamond,  and  without  which 
light  could  not  exist! 

The  reader  may  guess  the  Doctor’s  con- 
sternation when  this  marvelous  scientific 
palace  of  Aladdin  was  caused  to  fall  into 
shapeless  rubbish  at  his  feet  by  touching 
it  with  the  wand  of  a single  fact  which  the 


whole  scientific  world  admits,  namely,  that 
sound  will  not  pass  through  a vacuum  at  all, 
while  a vacuum  is  just  as  certainly  pilled  with 
this  hypothetic  ether , since  light  passes  as 
freely  through  a vacuum  as  through  air! 
Thus,  by  a single  touch  this  beautiful  ethe- 
real castle  in  the  air  fell  to  the  ground. 

Besides  this  annihilating  fact,  I referred 
him  to  the  conclusive  argument  just  em- 
ployed with  reference  to  air  in  iron  as  the 
means  for  producing  sound-waves.  If  ether 
pervades  all  bodies,  and  if  sound-waves 
are  only  ethereal  undulations,  why  should 
sound  travel  seventeen  times  faster  in  iron 
than  in  air?  It  is  evident  that  there  is 
more  room  for  ether  in  air  than  in  a dense 
body  like  iron.  It  therefore  turns  out, 
according  to  this  brilliant  discovery,  that 
the  less  the  quantity  of  ether  the  greater 
the  velocity  of  sound, — which,  carried  far 
enough,  would  prove  that  if  there  were  no 
ether  at  all  the  velocity  of  sound  would  be 
still  greater!  Thus, it  turned  out  that  this 
important  discovery  of  my  friend  had  just 
about  as  much  weight  as  the  substance  on 
which  it  was  based. 

To  satisfy  the  Doctor  as  to  this  terrible 
demolition  of  his  grand  creation,  I then 
turned  to  Professor  Tyndall's  work  on 
“Sound,”  and  read  numerous  passages 
in  which  he  distinctly  and  unequivocally 
teaches  that  it  is  the  “ air-particles"  them- 
selves which  are  “moulded”  into  “waves,” 
with  “condensations  and  rarefactions,”  and 
which  actually  make  the  “small  excursion 
to  and  fro,”  and  that  it  is  the  physical 
atmosphere  which  is  thus  heated  by  the 
passage  of  these  sound-waves,  and  its 
“temperature”  so  raised  as  to  actually  in- 
crease its  “elasticity”  “one  sixth,”  by 
which  “one  sixth”  is  added  to  the  velocit ' 
of  sound.  I also  showed  by  these  quota- 
tions that  Professor  Tyndall  (my  friend’s 
great  mentor)  never  dreamed  of  ether  in 
the  air  being  the  medium  of  sound-waves, 


Chav.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


253 


and  hence  that  ether  can  not  so  act  in  iron, 
because  he  particularly  shows  on  page  7 of 
his  treatise  on  “Sound”  that  although  a 
vacuum  is  full  of  ether  yet  sound  can  not 
travel  in  it.  Among  these  quotations  over- 
throwing this  ethereal  palace  of  my  friend 
were  the  following,  some  of  them  already 
quoted  on  pages  78  and  79: — 

“Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a harp-string  vi- 
brating to  and  fro ; it  advances,  and  causes  the 
f articles  of  air  [not  particles  of  ether  or  some  other 
element  existing  in  the  air]  in  front  of  it  to  crowd 
together , thus  producing  a condensation  of  the  air. 
It  retreats,  and  the  air-particles  behind  it  separate 
more  widely , thus  producing  a rarefaction  of  the  air. 

. . . In  this  way  the  air  through  which  the  sound 
of  the  string  is  propagated  is  moulded  into  a regular 
sequence  of  condensations  and  rarefactions  which 
travel  with  a velocity  of  about  noo  feet  a second.” 
— “The  pitch  of  a note  depends  solely  on  the  num- 
ber of  aerial  waves  which  strike  the  ear  in  a second. 
[Showing  that  these  “ aerial  waves,"  which  are 
“moulded” by  the  string,  actually  travel  the  whole 
distance  within  which  the  sound  is  heard,  if  a dozen 
miles,  since  such  waves  “strike  the  ear.”]  The 
loudness  or  intensity  of  the  note  depends  on  the 
distance  within  which  the  separate  atoms  of  air  vi- 
brate. This  distance  [Mark  it,  a real  “ distance ,” 
increasing  according  to  loudness  or  intensity,]  is 
called  the  amplitude  of  vibration.” — “We  have  al- 
ready learned  that  what  is  loudness  in  our  sensa- 
tions, is,  outside  of  us,  nothing  more  than  width  of 
swing,  or  amplitude  of  the  vibrating  air-particles.” 
— “ Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork 
swiftly  advancing;  it  compresses  the  air  [not  the 
ether\  immediately  in  front  of  it,  and  when  it  re- 
treats it  leaves  a partial  vacuum  behind.  . . . The 
whole  function  of  the  tuning-fork  is  to  carve  the  air 
[not  carve  the  ether  or  some  other  substance]  into 
these  condensations  and  rarefactions.” — Tyndall, 
Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  48,  62 ; Heat  as  a Mode  of 
Motion,  pp.  225,  372. 

I then  proved  to  the  Doctor  that  his 
favorite  physicist,  Professor  Tyndall,  was 
not  alone  or  peculiar  in  thus  teaching  that 
sound-waves  were  constituted  of  the  real 
particles  of  the  substance  through  which 
they  pass,  by  taking  down  from  his  own 
magnificent  library  numerous  authors  who 
teach  exactly  the  same  thing.  In  the  ar- 


ticle on  “Sound,”  for  example,  in  Apple- 
ton’s American  Encyclopedia,  Professor 
Mayer,  a high  authority,  distinctly  teaches 
that  it  is  the  air-particles  themselves  which, 
in  a sound-wave, have  a regular  isochronal 
movement,  and  '''’swing  to  and  fro  with  the 
motions  of  pendulums”  as  the  sound  travels, 
keeping  up  the  same  oscillations  “to  a dis- 
tance.” Professor  Mayer  remarks: — 

“It  is  evident  that  the  ultimate  effect  of  the  pas- 
sage of  sonorous  waves  through  the  atmosphere  will 
be  to  cause  the  molecules  of  the  air  [not  the  mole- 
cules of  ether]  to  swing  to  and  fro  with  the  motions 
of  pendulums.  It  is  also  apparent  that  all  the 
characteristics  of  the  periodic  motion  at  the  source 
of  the  sound  will  be  impressed  on  the  surrounding 
air,  and  transmitted  through  it  to  a distance.” 

I also  referred  him  to  Professor  Helm- 
holtz, where  he  distinctly  teaches  that  in 
the  passage  of  a sound-wave  through  the 
air  the  particles  of  the  atmosphere — not 
of  the  ether — take  on  “comparatively  a 
large  amplitude  of  vibration,”  as  recently 
quoted. 

In  addition  to  these,  and  numberless 
passages  which  might  be  quoted  from  high 
authorities  on  the  subject,  I pointed  out 
to  my  friend  the  fact  that  in  Professor 
Tyndall’s  Lectures  on  Sound  he  devotes 
several  pages  (26  to  37  inclusive)  to  an 
elaborate  calculation,  condensed  from  La- 
place, the  great  astronomer  and  mathe- 
matician, to  show  why  sound  travels 
through  air  at  the  freezing  temperature 
1090  feet  a second,  notwithstanding  New- 
ton’s basis  of  sound-velocity, deduced  from 
the  density  and  elasticity  of  the  air,  proves 
that  it  can  not  exceed  916  feet  a second. 
Professor  Tyndall  accounts  for  this  differ- 
ence of  174  feet  a second  (about  one  sixth) 
between  Newton’s  law  and  the  observed 
velocity,  by  the  hypothesis  so  often  quoted, 
that  all  sounds  in  passing  through  the 
atmosphere  produce  waves  which  cause 
“condensations”  of  the  air, and  thus  gener- 
ate//ra/  throughout  the  entire  distance  the 


254 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sound  travels,  and  that  this  augmentation 
of  the  air’s  temperature  increases  its  ‘‘‘'elas- 
ticity'' which  makes  up  the  discrepancy  in 
Newton’s  calculation  by  adding  one  sixth 
to  the  velocity  of  sound.  In  all  this  elab- 
orate calculation  by  Professor  Tyndall, 
too  long  to  quote,  the  operation  is  shown 
by  an  engraving  to  be  performed  by  the 
actual  air-particles  first  pressing  forward 
into  one  portion  of  a wave  where  they  be- 
come heated  by  pressure,  and  then  oscil- 
lating backward  into  another  portion 
where  they  become  cooled  off. 

From  all  this,  I showed  him  that  it  was 
simple  folly  to  try  to  evade  the  fatal  con- 
sequences of  wave-motion,  which  explicitly 
inculcates  that  the  actual  particles  of  the 
substance  through  which  sound  passes — 
whether  it  be  air  or  iron,  wood  or  water, 
— constitute  the  undulations , and  literally 
make  up  the  “small  excursion  to  and  fro” 
as  each  sound-wave  passes;  and  that  any 
serious  effort  by  a physicist  to  evade  this 
consequence  would  be  to  abandon  the 
whole  wave-theory. 

I was  thus  exorbitantly  particular  on 
this  point  of  the  wave-particles  themselves 
actually  making  the  “excursion  to  and 
fro,”  and  in  showing  that  I did  not  mis- 
conceive nor  misrepresent  the  wave-theory, 
that  by  no  possible  contingency  should 
the  appearance  of  a quibble  or  evasion 
intervene  to  save  the  scientific  monstrosity 
from  destruction.  At  the  close  of  this 
second  interview  I had  the  satisfaction,  if 
not  of  fully  converting  my  friend  to  the 
new  hypothesis  of  substantial  sonorous 
pulses,  at  least  of  obtaining  from  him  the 
voluntary  admission  that  such  a thing  as 
literal  undulations  in  iron  by  the  passage 
of  sound,  causing  its  particles  to  oscillate 
“to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pendu- 
lums,” to  say  nothing  of  iron  billows  with 
a wave-length  of  four  hundred  and  seventy- 
six  feet  from  “condensation  to  condensa- 


tion,’’which  the  theory  necessarily  requires, 
was  too  infinitely  preposterous  a supposi- 
tion for  any  scientific  mind  to  entertain 
for  a single  moment. 

I now  assert  that  it  is  safe  to  predict 
that  the  elaborate  argument  and  calcula- 
tion just  referred  to,  in  which  Professor 
Tyndall  unwittingly  proves  by  careful 
figures  and  illustrations  that  the  stridula- 
tion  of  a locust  raises  the  temperature  of 
the  condensed  half  of  four  square  miles 
of  atmosphere,  and  thus  increases  its  elas- 
ticity and  adds  one  sixth  to  the  velocity 
of  sound,  will  be  regarded  by  future  gen- 
erations as  one  of  the  most  laughable  phil- 
osophical curiosities  ever  placed  on  record 
by  a sane  mind,  and  by  the  side  of  which 
the  Ptolemaic  absurdities  (of  making  the 
earth  the  center  of  the  universe,  with  the 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  revolving  around  it 
every  twenty-four  hours)  sink  into  insig- 
nificance. While  the  amused  reader,  hun- 
dreds of  years  hence, will  find  no  difficulty 
in  framing  ample  excuse  for  the  Ptolemaic 
school  of  philosophers  on  account  of  the 
manifest  physical  appearances  of  the 
heavens,  he  will  be  able  to  find  nothing  in 
the  scientific  literature  or  the  advanced 
state  of  mental  cultivation  of  this  age  of 
steam  presses  and  lightning  telegraphs  on 
which  to  base  the  least  foundation  for  an 
excuse  palliating  so  stupid  a theory  as  this 
of  which  Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz, 
and  Mayer  are  the  popular  and  acknow- 
ledged champions, — compared  to  which 
the  silliest  scientific  hypothesis  of  Aristotle 
becomes  sound  philosophy. 

Take  the  following  as  one  of  the  many 
inevitable  results  of  the  atmospheric  wave- 
theory  of  sound.  The  hypothesis  that  each 
particular  tone  consists  of  a regular  se- 
quence of  air-waves,  with  condensations 
and  rarefactions  which  tspvel  in  symmet- 
rical succession  throughout  the  distance 
the  sound  is  heard,  sometimes  for  many 


Chav.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


255 


miles,  without  the  tone  being  marred  or 
distorted  in  the  least  degree,  as  distinctly 
taught  by  all  writers  on  the  subject,  is  met 
by  the  following  insurmountable  difficulty 
in  the  very  operation  itself, — a difficulty 
which,  when  properly  weighed,  must  break 
down  the  hypothesis  without  the  aid  of 
another  argument. 

Waves  of  water,  to  which  sound-waves 
are  always  compared,  meeting  each  other 
from  three  dr  four  different  directions, will 
clash  together  and  become  broken  up,  dis- 
appearing in  an  indistinguishable  mass  of 
irregular  hillocks,  without  the  possibility 
of  an  approach  toward  reconstruction  after 
collision.  This  is  a fact  well  known  to 
any  one  who  has  ever  taken  the  trouble  to 
observe  the  action  of  ripples  meeting  on 
the  surface  of  a pond  from  the  effect  of 
three  or  four  stones  dropped  into  the  water 
a few  yards  apart.  No  possible  continuity 
of  symmetrical  waves  can  be  traced  after 
such  collision  and  commingling,  since  a 
system  of  waves  from  one  direction  could 
move  no  farther  in  regular  form  and  order 
after  meeting  a system  of  equal  amplitude 
from  another  direction.  Much  less  could 
twenty  such  systems  of  undulations,  com- 
ing from  twenty  different  directions,  meet, 
clash,  and  intermingle  indiscriminately, 
and  then  each  series  move  on  as  waves , 
undisturbed  or  undistorted,  which  is  abso- 
lutely the  case  with  atmospheric  sound- 
waves according  to  the  current  theorv, 
since  twenty  musical  instruments  may  be 
playing  at  the  same  time  in  different  direc- 
tions around  you,  with  their  sonorous 
waves  necessarily  crashing  through  each 
other  and  breaking  up  like  water-waves 
into  manifold  and  irregular  hillocks,  yet 
by  an  effort  of  attention  the  notes  of  each 
instrument  can  be  distinctly  recognized  as 
pure  and  unbroken  as  if  nineteen  other 
systems  of  sound-waves  were  not  dashing 
through  them  in  different  directions! 


Need  we  ask  a clearer  demonstration 
that  the  tones  of  these  various  instruments 
do  not  consist  of  air- waves  which  Professor 
Helmholtz  assures  us,  as  already  quoted, 
move  “exactly  in  the  same  way”  as  water- 
waves,  are  “essentially  identical,”  and  “of  a 
precisely  similar  nature”?  If  these  sounds 
were  really  constituted,  each  of  a “regular 
sequence”  of  atmospheric  undulations 
moulded  and  sent  off  by  its  respective  in- 
strument, as  Professors  Tyndall  and  Helm- 
holtz teach  all  through  their  books,  it  would 
inevitably  follow  that  not  a single  tone 
could  reach  the  ear  undistorted,  or  in  its 
proper  vibrational  form,  if  at  all,  as  the 
waves  would  surely  clash  and  be  broken 
into  a confused  mass;  for,  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly remembered  that  if  sound  is  con- 
stituted of  waves,  then,  whenever  the  waves 
are  ruptured  or  disintegrated, as  they  would 
be  if  a number  of  systems  clashed  together, 
the  sound  would  be  changed  from  musical 
tones  to  mere  noise , if  not  destroyed  alto- 
gether! Is  not  this  self-evident  to  every 
mind  competent  to  investigate  scientific 
matters,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
air-waves  are  “essentially  identical”  with 
water-waves  ? 

When  on  another  phase  of  the  sound- 
theory  and  when  trying  to  illustrate  the 
operation  of  his  “condensations”  and 
“rarefactions”  in  creating  a “phase  of 
opposition”  and  producing  “interference,” 
Professor  Tyndall  distinctly  teaches  that 
if  only  two  equal  systems  of  waves,  whether 
of  sound  or  water,  should  happen  to  “in- 
terfere” by  the  crests  of  one  system  falling 
into  the  furrows  of  the  other  system,  they 
would  mutually  destroy  each  other.  I will 
quote  his  words : — 

“In  the  case  of  water,  when  the  crests  of  one 
system  of  waves  coincide  with  the  crests  of  anothci 
system,  higher  waves  will  be  the  result  of  the  co- 
alescence of  the  two  systems.  But  when  the  crests 
of  one  system  coincide  with  the  sijntses  or  furrows 
of  the  other  system,  the  two  systems  in  whole  or  in 


256 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


part  destroy  each  other.  This  mutual  destruction 
of  two  systems  of  waves  is  called  interference.  The 
same  remarks  apply  to  sonorous  waves.  If  in  two 
systems  of  sonorous  waves  condensation  coincides 
■with  condensation  and  rarefaction  with  rarefaction, 
the  sound  produced  by  such  coincidence  is  louder 
than  that  produced  by  either  system  taken  singly. 
But  if  the  condensations  of  the  one  system  coincide 
with  the  rarefactions  of  the  other,  a destruction 
total  or  partial  of  both  systems  is  the  consequence. 
. . . If  the  two  sounds  be  of  the  same  intensity, 
their  coincidence  produces  a sound  of  four  limes  the 
intensity  of  either;  while  their  interference  produces 
absolute  silence.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  284,  285. 

There  is  no  misunderstanding  this  cita- 
tion; for  if  two  systems  of  equal  waves 
from  two  unison  forks,  for  example,  "in- 
terfere," by  the  forks  being  placed  half  a 
wave-length  apart,  so  that  the  “condensa- 
tions” from  one  fork  “coincide”  with  the 
“rarefactions”  from  the  other,  “their  in- 
terference produces  absolute  silence.”  Yet, 
as  we  see,  twenty  different  sounds,  with 
their  twenty  different  systems  of  air-waves, 
will  infallibly  reach  the  ear  from  as  many 
different  directions,  while  each  individual 
sound  will  be  as  distinctly  heard  by  special 
attention  and  as  perfectly  unbroken  as  if 
no  other  sounds  crossed  its  path.  Is  it 
possible  to  suppose  that  twenty  different 
systems  of  actual,  corporeal  air-waves,  from 
as  many  points  of  the  compass,  can  thus 
crash  through  each  other,  but  invariably, 
without  a single  exception,  while  being 
fretted  and  broken  into  inexplicable  tum- 
uli, as  they  must  be  if  actual  waves,  each 
proceeds  separately  on  its  journey,  and 
undistorted  enters  the  ear  with  its  “con- 
densations” and  “rarefactions”  unmarred, 
— as  must  be  the  case  to  represent  the 
appropriate  tone?  Yet  two  systems  of 
sound-waves  are  just  as  liable  to  interfere 
and  cause  “absolute  silence”  as  to  coincide 
and  be  heard! 

Nothing,  it  would  seem,  but  desperation 
in  support  of  a theory  could  prevent  a 
mind  competent  to  reason  on  a scientific 


subject  from  seeing  the  contradiction  and 
practical  fallacy  of  the  wave-theory,  from 
this  consideration  alone.  Yet  so  far  from 
throwing  a ray  of  suggestive  light  on  the 
mind  of  Professor  Tyndall,  so  absolutely 
wedded  seem  all  his  intellectual  powers 
to  the  manifest  folly  of  air-waves,  that  he 
not  only  is  willing  to  accept  the  stupen- 
dous impossibility  of  twenty  such  systems 
of  atmospheric  undulations  breaking 
through  each  other  and  yet  continuing 
undistorted,  without  the  shadow  of  “inter- 
ference,” but  he  raises  the  number  to  a 

thousand’  systems  of  such  waves  passing 
through  “the  same  air”  “at  the  same  time,” 
and  each  tone  addressing  the  tympanic 
membrane,  if  listened  to  by  the  proper  act 
of  attention.  As  there  is  no  possible  way 
of  knowing  that  “the  same  air”  can  ac- 
commodate a “thousand”  tones  from  a 
“thousand  instruments”  at  “the  same 
time”  only  by  hearing  them,  it  utterly  ex- 
plodes this  idea  of  the  “interference”  of 
air-waves,  and  with  it  the  existence  of 
such  waves  as  the  means  of  sound-propa- 
gation. For,  if  sonorous  air-waves  really 
exist,  and  if  two  systems  stand  an  equal 
chance  of  destroying  each  other  by  inter- 
ference, what  would  become  of  a “thou- 
sand” systems  from  a “thousand  instru- 
ments” passing  through  the  same  air  at 
the  same  time?  Professor  Tyndall  re- 
marks:— 

“The  same  air  is  competent  to  accept  and  trans- 
mit the  vibrations  of  a thousand  instruments  at  the 
same  time.  When  we  try  to  visualize  the  motions 
of  that  air — to  present  to  the  eye  of  the  mind  the 
battling  of  the  pulses  direct  and  reverberated — the 
imagination  retires  baffled  at  the  attempt.” — Lec- 
tures on  Sound,  p.  257. 

No  wonder  “the  imagination  retires 
baffled”  at  the  legitimate  consequences 
of  a theory  so  practically  impossible  and 
absurd,  in  the  very  nature  of  thi  ngs ! We 
have  only  to  reflect  that  the  cylinder  of 
air  entering  the  ear  is  no  larger  than  a 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


257 


straw,  and  that  this  small  body  of  air  has 
to  receive  the  waves  from  “a  thousand  in- 
struments at  the  same  time,”  and  that 
these  are  actual,  physical  air-waves,  with 
“condensations  and  rarefactions,”  some 
of  them  measuring  five , ten , and  twenty 
feet  from  crest  to  crest  and  of  proportion- 
ate amplitude,  each  instrument  sending 
into  this  small  cavity  from  forty  to  many 
thousand  such  waves  each  second,  and  yet 
that  all  th'ese  billows  of  air,  crashing 
through  each  other  from  different  direc- 
tions at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a second 
as  they  approach  the  ear,  fall  undistorted 
against  the  tympanic  membrane,  while, 
let  it  not  be  forgotten , any  two  systems  of 
equal  waves  stand  the  same  chance  of  “ inter- 
ference" and  consequent  “ absolute  silence” 
as  of  being  heard!  No  wonder  that  “the 
imagination  retires  baffled”! 

The  same  difficulty  applies  with  equal 
force  to  the  Undulatory  Theory  of  Light. 
The  waves  of  ether — a substance  which 
Professor  Tyndall  supposes  to  resemble  a 
“jelly” — from  a distant  star, after  crashing 
through  a million  other  systems  of  ethereal 
undulations  from  as  many  stellar  bodies, 
liable  to  infinitely  complicated  distortions, 
seem  to  enter  the  eye  without  the  mark  of 
a collision  on  their  polished  billows! 

Had  Professor  Tyndall  informed  his 
class  of  scientific  students  how  a single 
air-wave  from  E of  the  double  bass,  2 8 feet 
long  and  of  at  least  two  or  three  feet 
amplitude,  if  symmetrically  proportioned 
as  it  should  be  if  “essentially  identical” 
with  water-waves,  could  make  its  way  un- 
broken through  a cylinder  no  larger  than 
a quill,  so  as  to  make  a proper  impression 
as  a wave  on  the  tympanic  membrane,  he 
would  have  solved  a problem  incompar- 
ably of  more  importance  than  any  sonor- 
ous demonstration  made  during  his  eight 
lectures,  and  the  class  could  then  have 
well  afforded  to  let  him  “retire  baffled” 


in  regard  to  how  “a  thousand  ” such  waves 
could  all  enter  the  ear  at  one  time! 

While  these  difficulties,  which  could  be 
greatly  increased  in  number,  are  utterly 
unanswerable  by  the  wave-theory,  not  one 
of  them  applies  with  any  force  against  the 
hypothesis  here  maintained  that  sound 
consists  of  corpuscular  emissions  radiated 
in  sonorous  discharges. 

Sound,  being  thus  an  incorporeal  sub- 
stance, not  subject  to  the  physical  laws 
which  control  air-particles  or  any  other 
corporeal  molecules,  acts  without  regard 
to  interfering  objects,  only  as  to  their  con- 
ductibility,  just  as  the  intangible  particles 
of  magnetism,  darting  from  the  poles  of  a 
magnet,  know  no  interference  of  even  the 
most  solid  and  imporous  substances.  Yet, 
as  shown  in  an  earlier  chapter  of  this  work, 
such  magnetic  currents  must  be  emana- 
tions of  attenuated  substance,  since  they 
actually  produce  corporeal  effects — mov- 
ing ponderable  masses  of  iron.  How  sim- 
ple, therefore,  that  sound,  as  constituted 
of  corpuscular  emissions,  under  a some- 
what similar  law  of  diffusion,  should  defy 
the  interference  of  counteracting  currents 
of  the  same  substance  by  their  passing 
through  each  other  without  disruption  ? 
Yet  how  plainly  impossible  is  this  action 
with  air-currents  when  the  undulations 
from  two  fans  clashing  in  a room,  with 
sufficient  smoke  admitted  to  visualize  the 
air-movements,  will  distort  and  completely 
obliterate  each  other’s  system  of  waves, 
demonstrating  that  even  two  systems  of 
any  corporeal  undulations,  coming  into 
collision,  will  annihilate  each  other  and 
prevent  all  further  orderly  progress? 

I now  invite  the  reader  to  a most  de- 
monstrative argument  against  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  and  which  at  the  same 
time  as  conclusively  demonstrates  the  cor- 
puscular hypothesis  to  be  the  only  satis- 
factory or  rational  solution  of  the  problem. 


2 5$ 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


I refer  to  the  well-established  scientific 
fact  that  sound  is  wholly  unaffected  by 
the  wind, , only  so  far  as  relates  to  the  small 
effect  from  the  bodily  movement  of  the  at- 
mosphere as  a conducting  medium , which,  in 
that  respect,  would  be  no  different  from 
a body  of  iron  or  water  moving  with  or 
against  the  direction  of  sound  while  con- 
ducting it. 

Contrary  to  the  popular  idea,  it  has  been 
proved  by  the  careful  observations  of  sci- 
entific men  employed  in  our  Signal  Service, 
as  well  as  in  the  service  of  other  nations, 
that  fog-horns  and  steam  sirens  are  many 
times  heard  against  a violent  gale  much 
farther  than  with  it,  even  when  the  atmos- 
pheric conditions  seemed  to  be  the  same. 
This  being  the  fact,  would  not  the  ratioci- 
nation of  any  reflecting  mind  force  the 
conclusion  that  sound  is  something  else 
than  physical  air-waves, which,  so  far  from 
traveling  against  the  wind  a distance  of 
from  ten  to  fifteen  miles,  and  at  a velocity 
of  over  a thousand  feet  a second,  can  not 
travel  against  it  at  all  even  a dozen  feet, 
when  forced  from  the  mouth  of  the  most 
powerful  fog-horn  in  the  service?  If  the 
mind  reasons  at  all  from  this  annihi- 
lating fact  so  clearly  arrayed  against  the 
atmospheric  wave-theory,  would  it  not  at 
once  be  driven  to  the  conclusion  that 
sound  must  be  some  kind  of  corpuscular 
emanation  which  moves  uninfluenced  by 
the  gross  or  ponderable  materials  through 
which  it  passes,  save  so  far  as  relates  to 
laws  of  conduction,  somewhat  analogous 
to  those  governing  electricity? 

General  Duane,  of  our  Signal  Service, 
in  his  report  to  the  Government,  says: — 

“ The  signal  is  often  heard  a great  distance  in 
one  direction,  while  in  another  it  will  scarcely  be 
audible  at  a distance  of  a mile.  This  is  not  the 
effect  of  the  wind , as  the  signal  is  frequently  heard 
m itch  farther  against  the  wind  than  with  it.  For 
example,  the  whistle  on  Cape  Elizabeth  can  always 
be  distinctly  heard  in  Portland,  a distance  of  nine 


miles,  during  a heavy  northeast  snow-storm,  the 
vnnd  blowing  a gale  directly  from  Portland  towara 
the  whistle .” 

But  the  reader  might  query  as  to  whether 
Professor  Tyndall  would  be  willing  to  ad- 
mit such  a fatal  state  of  facts  against  his 
favorite  theory  of  sound  consisting  simply 
of  air-waves  moulded  and  sent  off  from  a 
fog-horn  or  from  any  other  sound-producing 
instrument.  I will  allow  Professor  Tyndall 
to  testify  on  this  most  essential  question, 
as  he  does  in  his  Third  Edition  of  Lectures 
on  Sound , in  which  he  introduces  a special 
chapter  on  Coast  Signals.  At  page  296, 
reporting  his  observations  off  the  South 
Foreland,  he  says: — 

“At  a distance  of  gl  miles  from  the  station  the 
whistles  and  horns  were  plainly  heard  against  a 
■wind  with  a force  of  4 ; while  on  the  25th,  with  a 
favoring  wind  the  maximum  range  was  only  6J 
miles.  Plainly , therefore , something  else  than  the 
wind  must  be  influential  in  determining  the  range 
of  sound.” 

“ Plainly,  therefore,”  Professor  Tyndall, 
sound  must  consist  of  “something  else 
than  ” air-waves ; for  if  it  were  only  atmos- 
pheric undulations,  as  the  wave-theory  so 
clearly  teaches,  it  could  not  be  heard 
against  a wind  “with  a force  of  4”  twenty 
feet  from  the  mouth  of  the  most  powerful 
fog-horn  ever  constructed.  It  must  be  an 
exceedingly  slow  wind  which  would  not 
counteract  the  speed  of  air-waves  sent  off 
by  the  vibrations  of  a horn,  which  I have 
shown  in  a former  argument  can  not  reach 
to  a distance  of  but  a few  feet  in  still  air. 
while  their  velocity  does  not  exceed  five 
to  ten  feet  a second  even  in  a quiet  room! 
A breeze  which  can  be  felt  at  all  would 
travel  faster  than  that. 

One  of  the  central  errors  of  the  wave- 
theory,  and  one  on  which  its  very  existence 
hinges  more  completely,  perhaps,  than  on 
any  other,  is  this  pivotal  supposition  that 
the  vibratory  motion  of  a sounding  body, 


Chav.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


259 


such  as  a string,  tuning-fork,  reed,  or  horn, 
acts  upon  the  elasticity  or  spring  quality 
of  the  atmosphere,  and,  by  shoving  its 
particles  ahead,  transmits  a shock  or 
“push”  to  other  particles  still  in  advance, 
these  to  others,  and  so  on,  by  which  means 
an  air-wave  or  condensed  pulse  is  driven 
off  to  a distance  with  the  observed  velocity 
of  sound. 

No  greater  mistake  was  ever  perpetrated 
by  physicists  than  to  suppose  such  a thing 
as  this  possible  with  a body  like  our  atmos- 
phere, possessing  perfect  mobility  and  such 
trifling  density,  with  no  measurable  or  ap- 
preciable elasticity  or  spring-force,  under 
slow  displacement,  unless  confined  as  in  a 
tube  and  acted  on  by  a piston.  I propose, 
therefore,  at  this  point,  to  make  a brief 
digression  from  this  question  of  wind  and 
its  supposed  influence  on  the  range  of 
sound,  at  least  long  enough  to  take  up 
and  analyze  this  problem  of  the  so-called 
spring-power  of  the  air,  and  with  it  this 
vital  supposition  of  the  wave-theory  that 
the  vibratory  motion  of  a sounding  body 
is  capable  of  transmitting  a pulse  to  a 
great  distance  from  particle  to  particle 
of  the  air  with  the  observed  velocity  of 
sound. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  shown 
in  different  ways  that  there  was  no  such  a 
thing,  in  fact  or  in  philosophy,  as  this  so- 
called  “spring-power,”  or  elasticity  of  the 
atmosphere  when  unconfined, which  would 
tend  to  transmit  a pulse  from  particle  to 
particle  even  a single  foot  in  advance  by 
the  vibratory  motion  of  a tuning-fork  or 
other  sounding  body.  Yet  Professor  Tyn- 
dall, in  his  introductory  lecture  on  sound, 
teaches,  in  the  most  conspicuous  manner, 
that  the  air  acts  in  transmitting  tone  the 
same  as  a spiral  spring,  when  shoved  lon- 
gitudinally, acts  upon  its  own  substance; 
and  that  if  one  particle  of  air  should  be 
suddenly  pushed,  it  will  communicate  the 


push  to  the  next  particle  in  the  same  di- 
rection, it  to  the  next,  and  so  on,  at  the 
observed  velocity  of  sound,  and  through- 
out the  entire  distance  a sound  may  be 
heard,  if  ten  miles ! 

To  make  sure  that  his  audience  did  not 
fail  to  catch  and  retain  a correct  idea  of 
this  fundamental  principle  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  the  Professor  proceeded 
to  illustrate  it,  thus  to  impress  it  on  the 
memory,  by  placing  a row  of  glass  balls  in 
a groove  so  closely  together  as  to  touch 
each  other,  the  end  one  of  which  being 
pushed  longitudinally  in  the  direction  of 
the  row  would  transmit  the  impulse  through 
the  entire  line, driving  off  the  farthest  ball, 
just  as  the  air-particles  at  a distance  from 
a sounding  body  are  claimed  to  be  finally 
driven  against  the  tympanic  membrane, 
thus  causing  it  to  vibrate. 

He  also  illustrated  the  same  idea  by 
employing  a row  of  boys , each  with  his 
hands  resting  on  the  shoulders  of  the  one 
in  front  throughout  the  line  of  half  a dozen, 
more  or  less,  the  hindmost  one  of  whom 
being  pushed  forward  would  communicate 
the  impulse,  by  the  spring-power  of  his 
rigid  arms,  to  the  next,  he  to  the  next,  and 
so  on,  the  last  boy  being  pushed  over, hav- 
ing no  other  boy  in  front  of  him  to  receive 
the  shock!  But  I must  quote  the  lecturer’s 
words,  in  order  to  properly  convey  the 
idea: — 

“ I place  these  balls  along  a groove,  thus,  Fig.  1, 
each  of  them  touching  its  neighbor.  Taking  one 
of  them  in  my  hand,  I urge  it  against  the  end  of 
the  row.  The  motion  thus  imparted  to  the  first  ball 
is  delivered  up  to  the  second , the  motion  of  the  sec- 
ond is  delivered  up  to  the  third,  the  motion  of  the 
third  is  imparted  to  the  fourth ; each  ball  after 
having  given  up  its  motion  returning  itself  to  rest. 
The  last  ball  only  of  the  row  flies  away.  Thus  is 
sound  conveyed  from  particle  to  particle  through  the 
air.  The  particles  which  Jill  the  cavity  of  the  ear 
are  finally  driven  against  the  tympanic  membrane , 
which  is  stretched  across  the  passage  leading  to  the 
brain.  This  membrane,  which  closes  the  * drum  ’ 
of  the  ear,  is  thrown  into  vibration,"  &c. 


26o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Speaking  of  the  row  of  boys,  he  says: — 

“We  could  thus  transmit  a push  through  a row 
of  a hundred  boys,  each  particular  boy,  however, 
only  swaying  to  and  fro.  Thus  also  we  send  sound 
through  the  air  and  shake  the  drum  of  the  distant 
ear, while  each  particular  particle  of  the  air  concerned 
in  the  transmission  of  the  pulse  makes  only  a small 
oscillation.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  3,  5. 

Now,  I emphatically  protest  that  this 
entire  argument,  from  beginning  to  end, 
as  thus  illustrated,  is  the  sheerest  scientific 
nonsense,  and  contains  not  one  scintilla 
of  philosophical  truth.  Nothing  but  the 
manifest  sincerity  of  the  lecturer  while 
elaborating  these  illustrations  prevents 
one  from  suspecting  that,  so  far  from  se- 
riously intending  them  as  a pertinent  in- 
culcation of  scientific  truth, he  was  adroitly 
attempting  to  play  a practical  joke  on  his 
class,  or  possibly  might  have  been  trying 
to  ascertain, as  a psychological  experiment, 
to  what  extent  an  intelligent  audience 
could  be  duped  to  believe  in  the  most 
monstrous  and  ridiculous  fallacies  when 
inculcated  as  science! 

To  teach,  as  he  did,  that  the  vibrating 
prong  of  a tuning-fork  moving  in  one  di- 
rection at  the  trifling  velocity  of  only  seven 
or  eight  inches  in  a second  (which  he  must 
have  jestingly  called  “swiftly  advancing’’!) 
through  a substance  having  the  fluxidity 
and  small  density  of  air,  should  give  to  its 
particles  any  kind  of  a forward  impetus 
or  “push”  which  could  affect  the  atmos- 
phere a foot  in  advance  of  the  prong,  is 
so  clearly  foundationless  in  reason  that  it 
can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  suppo- 
sition of  a practical  joke,  a psychological 
experiment,  or,  if  serious,  as  an  indication 
of  the  densest  innocence  of  all  true  scien- 
tific knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  speaker. 

There  evidently  can  be  no  justifiable  or 
even  pardonable  excuse  in  a great  scien- 
tist deliberately  comparing  this  assumed 
spring-power  of  the  free  particles  of  air  to 
the  action  of  “glass  balls”  secured  in  a 


“groove,”  which  must  necessarily  be  des- 
titute of  all  lateral  mobility  or  power  of 
escaping  sidewise,  and  hence  are  mechan- 
ically compelled,  when  pushed  in  the  man- 
ner described,  to  communicate  their  mo- 
tion from  the  balls  in  the  rear  to  those  in 
front!  Had  the  lecturer  been  illustrating 
the  action  of  air  confined  in  a tube  and 
operated  on  by  a closely  fitting  piston,  as 
was  done  by  Professor  Mayer  (see  pages 
11 1,  1 1 2),  there  would  have  been  some 
appropriateness  in  thus  exhibiting  to  his 
audience  the  row  of  glass  balls  restricted 
to  a “groove.”  As  it  was,  however,  these 
balls  having  been  employed  to  illustrate 
the  spring-power  of  air  perfectly  free  to 
move  laterally , and  to  show  how  a body 
like  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork,  by  moving 
slowly  through  it,  would  shove  its  particles 
ahead,  and  thus  transmit  the  “push”  from 
one  particle  to  another,  the  illustration 
becomes  as  absurd  as  it  is  unscientific  and 
superficial. 

As  well  might  this  lucid  philosopher 
exhibit  to  his  audience  a ball  of  platinum 
as  a pertinent  illustration  of  the  density 
and  specific  gravity  of  a similar  ball  of 
cork!  Such  a performance  would  be  so 
flatly  ridiculous  that  it  could  not  be  even 
mitigated  by  calling  it  a joke.  Yet  it  would 
not  be  a whit  more  monstrous  than  to  thus 
present  the  action  of  a row  of  glass  balls 
secured  in  a “groove”  as  a suitable  and 
pertinent  illustration  of  unconfined  air- 
particles  circulating  in  free  space!  He 
might  safely  and  pertinently  exhibit  the 
ball  of  platinum  to  elucidate  the  contrast, 
or  point  out  the  difference  between  it  and 
the  ball  of  cork,  but  not  otherwise.  So  he 
could  have  appropriately  employed  the 
row  of  glass  balls  thus  secured  in  a “groove” 
to  point  out  the  difference  between  the 
spring-force  and  elasticity  of  atmosphere 
confined  in  a tube,  and  its  marvelous  mo- 
bility, freedom  from  spring-power,  and 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


tendency  to  equilibrium,  when  circulating 
in  open  space ! But  really  to  occupy  the 
time  of  his  audience  with  the  action  of  the 
row  of  balls,  thus  secured  against  the  possi- 
bility of  lateral  motion , as  a proper  illustra- 
tion of  free  air-particles,  and' to  prove  that 
they  tend  to  shove  each  other  straight 
ahead,  as  did  this  eminent  physicist,  is 
simply  a laughable  travesty  on  an  illus- 
trated scientific  lecture;  and  I am  aston- 
ished that  any  audience  of  sufficient  intel- 
ligence to  be  attracted  to  such  an  exhi- 
bition could  permit  the  speaker,  however 
renowned,  to  escape  scot  free,  and  not 
“pin  him  down,”  to  use  his  own  words, 
and  pulverize  him  on  the  spot,  after  incul- 
cating such  transparent  philosophical  non- 
sense and  calling  it  science! 

On  page  112  I charged  physicists  with 
utterly  ignoring  the  mobility  of  the  air, — 
that  is,  its  tendency  to  flow  in  all  direc- 
tions, and  then  form  an  equilibrium, when- 
ever disturbed, — one  of  its  most  persistent 
and  remarkable  characteristics.  I ask  the 
candid  reader  if  we  have  not  here,  in  this 
unmistakable  illustration  of  the  row  of 
glass  balls,  the  clearest  proof  that  my 
arraignment  was  just?  It  is  entirely  man- 
ifest, as  any  one  can  see,  that  a single 
word  from  Professor  Tyndall,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  this  exhibition,  as  to  the  lateral 
mobility  of  the  air,  or  its  tendency  to  get 
out  of  the  way  of  a passing  object  by 
moving  to  the  right  or  left,  and  thus  take 
its  place  behind  it,  would  have  hopelessly 
ruined  his  lecture,  by  neutralizing  every 
point  he  attempted  to  make  out  of  his 
elaborate  illustrations  of  the  balls  and  the 
row  of  boys!  To  have  taught,  as  he  did, 
first  that  a sound  is  simply  an  air-wave 
transmitted  as  a “push”  from  particle  to 
particle  of  the  atmosphere,  the  same  as 
the  motion  of  the  hindmost  ball  is  com- 
municated through  the  row,  and  then  to 
have  added  that  unlike  the  row  of  balls 


26l 

confined  in  the  groove,  the  air-particles 
possess  lateral  mobility  and  are  free  to  slip 
around  behind  and  not  be  pushed  at  all , it 
must  be  manifest  to  any  one  would  have 
literally  shelved  his  whole  argument,  and 
brought  down  the  house  in  laughter  at 
such  a philosophical  fiasco. 

He  can  not  deny  the  correctness  of  this 
criticism,  because,  according  to  the  clearly 
expressed  intention  of  his  argument  as 
thus  illustrated,  and  as  absolutely  required 
by  the  wave-theory,  the  air-particles  in 
front  of  the  tuning-fork’s  prong  have  no 
more  tendency  or  power  to  get  out  of  the 
way,  to  the  right  and  left,  by  exercising 
their  mobility,  and  thus  avoid  being  com- 
pressed and  pushed  ahead,  than  had  the 
glass  balls  confined  in  the  “groove”!  If 
atmospheric  particles  have  any  such  a 
power,  then  away  goes  all  this  talk  about 
transmitting  condensed  air-waves  to  a dis- 
tance. 

The  lateral  mobility  of  the  atmosphere 
being  thus  wholly  incompatible  with  that 
wave-motion  or  spring-power  of  the  air- 
particles  required  by  the  current  theory 
of  sound,  hence  the  suppression  of  any 
reference  to  it  in  the  writings  of  physicists 
when  discussing  sonorous  propagation.  I 
assert  that  not  one  such  reference  can  be 
found  in  any  work  treating  on  this  subject! 
It  speaks  illy  enough  for  the  advancement 
of  true  science  to  have  the  charge  justly 
thrust  into  the  faces  of  physicists  that  a 
well-known  physical  fact,  such  as  this  un- 
questionable law  of  pneumatics,  has  to  be 
ignored  because  it  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  pivotal  and  central  principle  of 
the  wave-theory  of  sound! 

Yet  it  stands  on  record,  and  can  not  be 
controverted,  that,  according  to  the  evi- 
dence adduced  all  the  way  through  the 
preceding  pages  of  this  monograph  from 
the  writings  of  these  great  authorities,  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  is  continually  forced 


262 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


to  ignore  the  simplest  laws  of  mechanics, 
pneumatics, and  acoustics, in  order  to  main- 
tain its  existence.  Even  if  it  has  to  assume 
that  a trifling  insect  is  capable  of  displac- 
ing and  oscillating  to  and  fro  a mass  of 
ponderable  matter  weighing  two  thousand 
million  tons,  as  was  abundantly  demon- 
strated in  the  preceding  chapter,  this  is 
nothing  to  the  importance  of  tympanic  vi- 
bration, for  example,  because  that  is  a part 
of  the  wave-theory,  and  must  not  be  sup- 
pressed! So  the  mobility  of  the  air,  ex- 
actly as  self-evident  as  its  compressibility 
or  elasticity,  must  be  quietly  suppressed, 
that  the  ridiculous  hypothesis  of  atmos- 
pheric spring-power  in  the  free  air  may 
survive  and  be  taught  as  a part  of  the 
current  sound-theory!  But  ignore  it  as 
they  may,  physicists  can  rest  assured  that 
as  certain  as  the  day  of  doom  overtakes 
every  false  theory  sooner  or  later,  just  so 
certain  does  this  single  physical  fact  of  the 
7nobility  of  the  air  ting  the  death-knell  of 
the  wave-theory  of  sound  the  moment  it  is 
understood  and  brought  to  bear  on  the 
question.  As  well  might  physical  philos- 
ophers attempt  to  ignore  the  fusibility  of 
lead  or  undertake  to  suppress  the  law  of 
gravitation,  as  to  try  to  ward  off  the  fatal 
effects  of  the  principle  of  atmospheric  mo- 
bility in  neutralizing  this  so-called  spring- 
power  of  the  air  as  illustrated  by  the  row 
of  glass  balls!  This  stubborn  law  of  physics 
will  not  down  at  the  bidding  of  any  philo- 
sophical formula,  and  refuses  to  be  sup- 
pressed or  ignored  any  longer  at  the  behest 
of  any  so-called  scientific  theory. 

I do  not  charge  these  authorities  with 
the  wilful  suppression  of  this  scientific 
fact  of  atmospheric  mobility.  They  may 
have  done  so  unpremeditatedly,  and  I do 
not  wish  to  be  understood  as  insinuating 
to  the  contrary.  Yet  there  is  such  a thing 
as  being  scientifically  dishonest  without 
meaning  to  be,  or  even  knowing  it.  As 


paradoxical  as  this  may  seem,  yet  in  one 
sense  it  may  contain  the  elements  of  truth. 
Is  it  not  possible  to  be  so  wedded  to  a 
favorite  theory,  and  to  be  so  in  the  habit 
of  bending  all  our  energies  to  its  support, 
that  in  discussing  its  principles  and  the 
laws  involved, we  many  times  involuntarily 
ignore  difficulties  which  thrust  themselves 
in  our  way,  and,  rather  than  be  annoyed 
with  what  we  allow  ourselves  to  fancy  for 
the  time  as  temporary  troubles,  we  shut 
our  eyes  to  real  objections,  and,  by  thus 
putting  off  the  evil  day  and  refusing  to 
face  them  at  once,  absolutely  ignore  ob- 
stacles which,  if  taken  up  and  analyzed, 
would  have  overthrown  our  hypothesis? 
Be  this  as  it  may,  no  man  is  in  a condition 
to  properly  investigate  the  details  of  a 
scientific  theory  till  he  is  able  to  suppress 
and  utterly  stamp  out  this  defective  ten- 
dency of  human  nature,  and  to  look  at 
physical  phenomena,  however  they  may 
cross  his  path,  with  the  sole  object  of  ar- 
riving at  the  truth,  whichever  way  it  may 
lead,  and  of  accepting  its  principles  and 
laws,  even  if  his  most  cherished  hypoth- 
eses are  thereby  dashed  to  the  ground. 

It  is  on  this  basis  that  I make  my  com- 
plaint and  enter  my  charge  against  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  as  a popular  instructor  on 
questions  of  physical  science,  and  insist 
that  a public  lecturer  so  recklessly  careless 
of  accuracy,  or  else  so  blinded  by  the  in- 
fluence of  a pre-adopted  theory,  and  hence 
so  uninformed  on  the  scientific  subjects 
he  attempts  to  discuss,  as  not  to  know  that 
the  movement  of  the  open  hand  through 
the  air  at  a velocity  of  only  seven  or  eight 
inches  in  a second  could  produce  no  effect 
whatever  on  the  air-particles  a foot  in  ad- 
vance, owing  to  this  principle  of  mobility 
(let  alone  conveying  a “ condensation  and 
rarefaction'  of  the  atmosphere  to  a dis- 
tance of  hundreds  of  yards,  and  at  a ve- 
locity of  over  a thousand  feet  a second), 


Ciiap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


263 


justly  earns  and  ought  to  receive  the  ridi- 
cule of  the  whole  scientific  world.  Yet 
such  a motion  of  the  hand,  by  being  con- 
tinuous throughout  the  second,  instead  of 
being  divided  up  into  segmentary  motions 
of  sixteenths  of  an  inch  but  of  no  greater 
velocity,  ought  to  have  more  than  twenty 
times  the  effect  of  utilizing  this  so-called 
spring-power  of  the  air  and  of  transmitting 
a condensed  ^pulse  to  a distance  that  a 
tuning-fork’s  prong  would  have,  being 
twenty  times  as  large  and  passing  through 
the  air  with  the  same  velocity. 

Does  not  every  scientific  thinker,  who 
is  competent  to  reason  at  all  on  this  sub- 
ject, know  that  if  the  movement  of  the 
hand  through  the  air  at  a speed  of  seven 
or  eight  inches  in  a second  would  not  send 
a pulse  or  condensation  to  a distance  at 
the  observed  velocity  of  sound,  then  cer- 
tainly the  movement  of  the  same  hand  the 
sixteenth  of  an  inch  in  the  same  direction 
and  at  the  same  velocity  could  not  produce 
any  greater  effect?  And  if  the  hand  mov- 
ing a sixteenth  of  an  inch  at  that  trifling 
velocity  would  produce  no  such  condensa- 
tion of  the  air  at  a distance,  then  pray  tell 
us,  ye  astute  physicists,  how  it  is  that  a 
tuning-fork’s  prong , only  one  twentieth  as 
large,  moving  exactly  the  same  distance 
and  at  the  same  velocity,  should  send  off 
an  atmospheric  condensation  and  rarefac- 
tion at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a second? 

It  was  demonstrated  mathematically  in 
the  preceding  chapter  that  the  prong  of 
any  tuning-fork  can  move  only  at  a velocity 
of  seven  or  eight  inches  in  a second  in  one 
direction,  and  consequently  that  it  is  the 
essence  of  absurdity  to  suppose,  as  acous- 
ticians have  always  done,  that  the  sound 
generated  by  a vibrating  body,  like  a fork 
or  string,  was  caused  by  condensed  waves 
sent  through  the  air  by  a movement  of 
such  trifling  velocity.  As  the  reader  will 
recollect,  I took  the  liberty  of  laying  down 


for  the  first  time  the  new  acoustical  law 
by  which  the  true  cause  of  the  generation 
of  sound  was  clearly  expressed,  to  which 
I would  again  earnestly  call  the  attention 
of  physicists.  (See  pp.  92,  93.) 

Nothing,  in  fact,  but  this  superficial  and 
universal  misconception  of  supposing  that 
a tuning-fork’s  prong  “swiftly”  advances 
when  its  movement  is  almost  snail-like  (not 
half  as  fast  as  a child  a year  old  can  walk, 
as  proved  at  page  99),  could  ever  have  so 
misled  physicists  in  regard  to  this  erro- 
neous idea  of  “moulding”  and  “carving” 
and  “sending  off”  air-waves  at  the  enor- 
mous velocity  of  sound-pulses.  If  it  had 
ever  once  flashed  across  the  minds  of  these 
investigators  of  acoustical  phenomena  that 
a sounding  string  or  prong  of  a tuning- 
fork  was  never  known  to  travel  as  fast  as 
one  foot  in  a seco?id  in  o?ie  direction , all  this 
nonsense  about  the  spring-power  of  the 
free  air,  and  of  the  slowly  moving  prong 
or  string  carving  and  moulding  it  into  con- 
densations  and  rarefactions,  and  sending 
them  off  at  a velocity  of  1120  feet  a sec- 
ond by  such  snail-like  displacement, would 
long  since  have  disappeared  from  works 
on  science,  and  physicists  of  to-day  would 
be  looking  back  with  astonishment  at  the 
superficiality  and  stupidity  of  their  breth- 
ren of  the  past,  just  as  astronomers  of  the 
present  time  are  often  amazed  at  the  want 
of  perspicacity  in  mathematicians  of  the 
Ptolemaic  school,  who  believed  the  earth 
to  be  the  center  of  the  universe,  and  that 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  revolved  around 
it  every  twenty-four  hours. 

As  inconceivable  as  it  must  seem  to  the 
scientific  students  of  our  colleges  all  over 
the  land,  and  as  an  illustration  of  my  pres- 
ent argument,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact 
that  even  this  greatest  and  most  reliable 
of  modern  investigators  of  physics,  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz,  honestly  supposed  that 
the  prong  of  a tuning-fork  necessarily 


264 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


travels  “ very  much  faster,"  to  use  his  exact 
words,  than  the  ball  of  a swinging  pendu- 
lum, as  already  quoted,  while  any  scien- 
tific mechanic  knows,  or  may  know  by  a 
moment’s  calculation,  that  a pendulum 
having  beats  of  two  seconds  each,  and  os- 
cillating through  a third  of  a circle, actually 
travels  more  than  twenty  times  “ faster ” than 
the  motion  of  the  prong  of  any  tuning-fork 
ever  constructed!  (See  quotation  from 
Helmholtz,  page  92.) 

This  same  investigator,  looked  up  to  as 
the  highest  standard  authority  on  all  ques- 
tions of  physical  science  in  our  colleges 
and  universities,  honestly  supposed  (be- 
cause it  appeared  to  harmonize  with  the 
requirements  of  the  wave-theory  of  sound) 
that  a violin-string  oscillates  normally  with 
a velocity  utcn"  times  greater  than  that  of 
the  bow  in  the  player’s  hand,  while,  as  it 
was  fully  demonstrated  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  the  average  velocity  of  the  string 
in  playing  was  not  one  fourth  that  of  the 
bow,  or  not  more  than  one  fortieth  as  much 
as  supposed  by  this  world-renowned  au- 
thority! (See  quotation  and  exposition, 
pages  95,  96,  and  onward.) 

Then  look  for  one  moment  at  the  words 
of  our  most  popular  English  authority  on 
Sound,  Light,  and  Heat, — Professor  Tyn- 
dall,— whose  works  are  so  sought  after  as 
to  be  translated  into  most  of  the  lan- 
guages of  Europe: — 

“ Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork 
swiftly  advancing  [at  the  enormous  velocity  of  seven 
or  eight  inches  in  a second /]  It  compresses  the  air 
immediately  in  front  of  it  [Mark  the  language, — 
not  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left  of  it,  but  “imme- 
diately in  front  of  it,”  just  as  the  glass  balls  in  the 
“groove”  push  each  other  straight  ahead  if  we 
shove  the  hindmost  one!],  and  when  it  retreats  it 
leaves  a partial  vacuum  behind , the  process  being 
repeated  at  every  subsequent  advance  and  retreat. 
The  whole  function  of  the  tuning-fork  is  to  carve 
the  air  into  these  condensations  and  rarefactions.” 
— Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  62. 

“Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a haqi-string  vi- 


brating to  and  fro;  it  advances,  and  causes  the 
particles  of  air  in  froyit  of  it  [the  same  as  the 
tuning-fork’s  prong,  not  to  the  right  or  left , but 
“in  front,”  just  as  the  glass  balls  and  the  boys 
push  each  other,  straight  ahead,  without  lateral 
mobility /]  to  crowd  together,  thus  producing  a con- 
densation of  the  air.” — Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion, 
p.  225. 

Now,  it  is  entirely  plain,  if  there  is  the 
slightest  appropriateness  in  the  illustration 
of  the  row  of  glass  balls  in  connection  with 
the  language  here  used,  that  sound  should 
only  travel  in  a line  directly  in  advance  of 
the  moving  body  which  generates  it,  since  the 
sound  is  only  produced  by  the  compression  of 
the  air,  and  the  air  can  only  be  condensed 
“ immediately  in  front"  of  the  fork  or  string, 
just  as  the  glass  balls  can  only  communi- 
cate their  motion  from  one  to  another  in 
the  line  of  the  “groove,”  no  provision 
whatever  being  made  for  the  transmission 
of  their  motion  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the 
left,  since  all  lateral  mobility  of  the  balls 
as  well  as  of  the  air-particles  is  ignored! 

Thus,  the  illustrations  of  the  glass  balls 
and  the  row  of  boys  have  the  rare  merit 
of  consistency,  being  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  teaching  of  the  same  authority  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  sound  is  sent  off 
by  a vibrating  body, — namely,  in  advance 
only,  as  just  quoted.  In  perfect  keeping 
with  this  notion  of  spring-power , and  ac- 
cording to  the  expressly  worded  language 
here  cited,  the  prong  as  well  as  the  string 
“ advances ” and  “ compresses  the  air  imme- 
diately in  front  of  it,”  and,  like  the  balls, 
producing  no  effect  either  to  the  right  or 
left.  But  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
well-known  fact  that  the  sound  of  a tuning- 
fork  is  actually  heard  and  equally  as  well 
at  the  right  and  left  of  the  prong,  where 
there  is  no  lateral  motion  whatever,  and 
consequently  where  there  can  be  no  com- 
pression of  the  air,  what  becomes  of  this 
beautiful  row  of  glass  balls  and  this  accom- 
modating file  of  performing  boys?  The 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


265 


truth  is,  the  wave-theory  of  sound  breaks 
down  right  here,  unless  logic  and  reason 
have  been  banished  from  the  earth,  re- 
quiring no  other  argument  to  shatter  it 
than  the  illustrations  and  the  teaching  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  as  just  quoted;  for, 
since  the  row  of  balls  ignores  the  lateral 
mobility  of  the  air,  and  since  the  prong  of 
the  tuning-fork  only  “compresses  the  air 
immediately  ifi  front  of  it,”  having  no  mo- 
tion to  the  right  or  left,  and  hence  no 
compressive  force  in  that  direction,  the 
single  well-known  fact  that  sound  is  heard 
in  that  direction  as  well  as  in  the  line  of 
its  oscillation,  demonstrates  that  sound  is 
not  produced  by  atmospheric  condensa- 
tions at  all,  and  hence  that  this  spring- 
power  of  the  free  air  by  which  hypothetic 
sound-waves  are  sent  to  a distance  is 
purely  chimerical,  having  no  foundation 
in  fact. 

We  thus  reach  the  unavoidable  conclu- 
sion that  this  assumed  spring-power  of  the 
free  air,  by  which  a pulse  or  wave  may  be 
driven  off  by  means  of  a slowly  moving 
body  like  the  prong  of  a tuning-fork, 
amounts  to  absolutely  nothing,  and  any 
physicist  worthy  of  the  name  ought  to 
know  it.  If  I move  my  open  hand  through 
the  air  at  the  velocity  of  a tuning-fork’s 
prong  (seven  or  eight  inches  in  a second), 
instead  of  the  particles  of  air  being  com- 
pressed and  pushed  ahead  on  the  principle 
of  a spiral  spring  or  in  any  manner  analo- 
gous to  the  row  of  glass  balls,  thus  sending 
a “condensation  and  rarefaction”  off  at  a 
velocity  of  1120  feet  a second,  any  one 
with  the  faintest  idea  of  the  laws  of  pneu- 
matics knows  or  Ought  to  know  that  the 
air-particles  in  front  of  my  hand,  bringing 
their  mobility  into  play,  move  to  the  right 
and  left  as  the  hand  advances,  circle 
around  it,  and  in  the  most  orderly  manner 
take  their  place  behind  it,  thus  re-estab- 
lishing the  equilibrium  and  equalizing  the 


displacement  caused  by  the  moving  hand, 
without,  in  all  probability,  stirring  the  air 
a foot  from  my  hand  in  any  direction. 

Did  Professor  Tyndall,  I would  ask,  ob- 
serve any  such  phenomena,  while  present- 
ing these  illustrations  to  his  London  au- 
dience, as  the  front  balls  slipping  out  of 
the  groove  to  the  right  and  left  passing 
around  and  taking  their  place  in  the  groove 
behind,  as  he  gave  the  row  a push?  If  he 
did  not,  then  there  was  not  the  slightest 
pertinency  in  his  illustration,  or  similarity 
to  the  manifest  action  of  air-particles, since 
the  main  thing  always  resulting  from  the 
movement  of  an  object  sucli  as  the  hand 
through  the  air,  is  not  to  cause  a pulse  to 
travel  ahead  to  a distance  or  in  any  direc- 
tion, but  for  the  disturbed  air  to  accom- 
plish an  equilibrium,  and  make  good  the 
displacement  of  its  particles  by  the  short- 
est possible  route.  I do  not  insist  that  an 
illustration  shall  go  on  all  fours,  or  that  it 
shall  be  coerced,  to  elucidate  points  not 
essentially  involved  in  the  argument,  but 
I deny  that  there  is  any  illustration  of 
aerial  displacement  at  all  in  this  movement 
of  these  glass  balls,  or  the  semblance  of 
analogy  between  the  shoving  of  them 
straight  ahead  while  confined  in  a “groove” 
and  the  disturbance  of  the  freely  circulat- 
ing air  by  a slowly  moving  body  like  a 
tuning-fork’s  prong;  and  hence  the  attempt 
by  this  lecturer  to  represent  the  two  ac- 
tions as  in  the  slightest  degree  analogous, 

I insist  was  simply  practicing  a deliberately 
contrived,  though  perhaps  unintentional, 
imposition  upon  his  audience. 

Had  his  performing  boys  been  half  as 
bright  as  they  might  have  been, with  a few 
minutes’  private  training  before  they  made 
their  appearance  on  the  platform  to  assist 
in  this  farcical  illustration  of  aerial  dis- 
turbance, they  could  have  produced  a 
genuine  sensation,  as  discomfiting  to  the 
lecturer  as  it  would  have  been  beneficial 


266 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


to  his  auditors,  and  one  which  would  have 
caused  Professor  Tyndall  to  open  his  eyes 
as  they  were  perhaps  never  opened  before. 
It  would  have  only  required  the  front  lads 
of  the  row  to  gently  slip  out  of  line  to  the 
right  and  left  and  fall  back  to  the  rear  as 
the  Professor  gave  the  hindmost  boy  a 
“push”!  They  would  in  this  manner  have 
at  least  conveyed  some  faint  idea  of  the 
action  of  air  when  disturbed  by  a body 
passing  through  it,  instead  of  utterly  mis- 
representing it,  as  they  were  forced  to  do 
under  the  tuition  and  manipulation  of  this 
great  physicist!  Had  the  boys  been  a 
dozen  years  old,  and  possessed  the  advan- 
tages of  an  ordinary  education  up  to  that 
age,  I very  much  doubt,  if  they  had  been 
left  to  their  own  common  sense,  whether 
they  might  not  have  been  able  to  explode 
this  great  lecture  in  the  way  intimated 
without  any  private  prompting,  while  the 
audience  would  have  evidently  gone  home 
with  a good  deal  more  of  practical  scien- 
tific knowledge  in  their  heads  by  the  trick 
than  they  received  in  witnessing  such  a 
worthless  “comedy  of  errors.” 

But  I have  said  enough  on  this  question 
of  the  so-called  spring-power  of  the  air  to 
convince, as  I believe, any  unbiassed  mind 
that  the  small  vibratory  motion  of  a sound- 
ing body,  even  such  as  a fog-horn,  would 
be  incapable  of  transmitting  a condensed 
wave  to  a distance  of  a single  foot  against 
the  slightest  breeze  which  could  be  felt  at 
all,  to  say  nothing  of  counteracting  and 
traveling  against  a gale  moving  with  a ve- 
locity of  thirty  miles  an  hour,  or  forty-four 
feet  a second. 

The  sound  of  the  fog-horn  must,  there- 
fore, consist  of  something  else  than  air- 
waves. What  can  it  be,  I ask  the  un- 
prejudiced reader,  if  the  wave-hypothesis 
fails  to  explain  it,  as  it  manifestly  does? 
Surely  there  is  no  middle  ground  to  as- 
sume between  wave-motion  and  the  emis- 


sion of  some  kind  of  imponderable  cor- 
puscles generated  by  the  vibratory  motion 
of  the  sounding  body,  analogous  to  mag- 
netic particles,  which  propagate  themselves 
through  the  air  and  through  other  sub- 
stances in  defiance  of  such  physical  con- 
ditions as  atmospheric  currents. 

If  my  hypothesis  is,  therefore,  the  true 
one,  it  would  seem  that  this  imponderable 
sonorous  substance,  whatever  it  may  con- 
sist of,  should  travel  at  the  same  velocity 
against  the  wind  as  with  it,  minus  the  ve- 
locity of  the  atmosphere  itself, which, being 
the  conducting  medium  of  the  sound-par- 
ticles and  traveling  bodily  in  an  opposite 
direction  must  necessarily  subtract  that 
much  from  their  speed.  That  is  to  say,  if 
a gale  is  blowing  twenty  miles  an  hour, 
with  a temperature  of  sixty  degrees  Fah- 
renheit, sound,  which  travels  in  still  air 
1120  feet  a second,  would  move  against 
this  current  but  1091  feet  a second,  because 
the  air  itself  moves  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion 29  feet  a second,  which  must  neces- 
sarily be  deducted.  It  is  just  the  same  in 
principle  as  if  electricity  traveled  1000 
miles  a second  through  a wire,  while  the 
wire  was  itself  drawn  a mile  a second  in 
the  opposite  direction.  It  requires  no  ar- 
gument to  show  that  the  forward  advance 
of  the  electric  pulse  would  be  but  999  miles 
a second  instead  of  1000.  I will  here  ven- 
ture the  prediction  that  this  formula  as  to 
the  effect  of  wind  will  be  found  accurate 
whenever  future  science  shall,  by  careful 
experiment,  ascertain  the  facts,  which  will 
show  that  sound-pulses  or  sonorous  dis- 
charges travel  absolutely  unaffected  by 
air-currents,  thus  furnishing  a clear  dem- 
onstration that  air-waves,  with  “conden- 
sations and  rarefactions,”  and  a “small 
excursion  to  and  fro”  of  the  air-particles 
composing  the  waves,  have  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  sound-propagation,  since 
they  could  not  travel  against  the  wind  at  all. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


267 


One  would  think  that  this  fact  alone, 
of  sound  traveling  with  nearly  the  same 
intensity  and  to  the  same  distance  against 
the  wind  as  with  it,  so  clearly  shown  by 
the  testimony  recently  quoted,  ought  to 
have  opened  the  eyes  of  scientific  men 
long  ago  to  the  self-evident  impossibility 
of  sound  traveling  by  means  of  atmos- 
pheric undulations  driven  off  from  a vi- 
brating body  like  a fog-horn.  It  would 
really  seem  that  a logical  mind  ought  not 
to  reflect  on  the  problem  one  minute,  in 
view  of  this  evidence, without  being  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  air-waves,  with  the 
oscillation  “to  and  fro”  of  all  the  particles 
involved  in  the  transmission,  utterly  fall 
short  of  explaining  the  phenomena  of 
sound-propagation.  That  physicists  have 
not  long  since  reached  this  conclusion  can 
only  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
such  a thought  as  calling  in  question  the 
truth  of  the  long-established  and  univer- 
sally accepted  wave-theory  of  sound  was 
too  preposterous  a supposition  to  find  a 
resting-place  in  their  learned  heads, — 
though  they  have  told  us  over  and  over 
again,  as  recently  quoted,  that  sound-waves 
in  air  move  “exactly  in  the  same  way”  as 
water-waves,  are  “essentially  identical,” 
and  “precisely  similar.”  Yet  there  is  not 
to-day  an  engineer  who  would  not  laugh 
in  the  face  of  a man  who  should  assert 
that  a steamboat,  anchored  in  a rapid 
stream,  could  send  the  waves  from  its  re- 
volving wheels  as  far  up-stream  as  down, 
or  even  send  them  at  all  against  the  cur- 
rent, provided  its  movement  was  as  rapid 
as  the  motion  of  the  revolving  paddles; 
while  this  same  engineer,  if  he  happened 
to  be  a disciple  of  Professor  Tyndall,  would 
see  not  the  least  absurdity  or  inconsistency 
in  a vibrating  fog-horn,  which  could  not 
stir  the  still  air  over  twenty-five  or  thirty 
feet  from  its  mouth,  sending  actual  air- 
waves against  a violent  gale  at  a velocity 


of  a thousand  feet  a second  and  to  a dis- 
tance of  a dozen  miles  with  such  force 
that  the  oscillating  air-particles  would 
be  sensibly  dashed  against  the  tympanic 
membrane,  causing  it  to  physically  vi- 
brate ! 

It  staggers  human  credulity  that  men 
can  be  found  to  believe  such  an  enormous 
fallacy, without  once  calling  it  in  question; 
for  there  is  not  to-day  in  the  m , thology 
of  all  heathendom  a superstition  involving 
results  without  adequate  means  more  ab- 
surdly ridiculous  than  is  the  mechanical 
result  involved  in  this  universally  accepted 
scientific  superstition,  which  absolutely 
converts  a tiny  insect,  as  I have  already 
demonstrated,  into  an  engine  of  50,000,000 
horse-power!  Yet  the  scientists  who  hold 
to  such  a monstrous  impossibility,  which 
hurls  defiance  into  the  teeth  of  all  known 
laws  and  forces  of  Nature,  are  the  very 
men  to  look  with  sardonic  pity  on  a man 
who  is  so  superstitious  as  to  admit  the  ex- 
istence of  a God  or  to  believe  in  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul! 

The  great  diversity  observed  in  the 
range  of  sound, when  no  perceptible  differ- 
ence exists  in  the  state  of  the  atmosphere, 
is  just  now  the  puzzling  question  with  the 
scientific  world,  particularly  with  those  en- 
gaged in  the  Signal  Service  of  the  various 
civilized  nations. 

Professor  Tyndall  devotes  an  entire 
chapter  to  this  inexplicable  problem,  leav- 
ing it  after  all  about  where  he  found  it, 
with  the  mere  opinion  that  this  diversity 
of  range  in  clear  air  is  due  to  banks  or 
clouds  of  invisible  vapor  of  more  or  less 
conductibility  or  resistance,  as  the  case 
may  be,  to  the  air-waves  sent  off  by  the 
fog-horn!  This  surmise  is  about  as  satis- 
factory as  the  hypothesis  of  an  invisible 
and  intangible  ether  like  a “jelly,”  filling 
all  space  and  all  solid  bodies,  by  which  to 
account  for  the  useless  undulations  of  light 


268 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  heat,  rather  than  admit  them  to  be 
substantial  emanations. 

That  a fog-horn  or  steam  siren  should 
be  heard  sixteen  miles  in  a still,  clear  at- 
mosphere, one  day,  and  the  next  be  inau- 
dible a distance  of  two  miles  in  the  same 
direction  and  with  the  same  atmospheric 
conditions  precisely,  so  far  as  ordinary  ob- 
servation can  determine,  may  well  be  a 
mystery  to  cause  scientists  to  marvel,  and 
I venture  the  prediction  that  it  will  never 
be  explained  satisfactorily  till  the  true 
substantial  nature  of  sound  is  made  a fac- 
tor in  the  investigation. 

Are  physicists  sure  they  understand  all 
about  even  the  substantial  structure  of  our 
atmosphere?  Perhaps  if  they  did,  such 
improbable  guesses  as  banks  and  clouds  of 
invisible  vapor,  sufficiently  dense  to  coun- 
teract air-waves  and  stop  their  progress, 
might  be  rendered  unnecessary.  Let  us 
see  if  some  guess  in  regard  to  the  air  itself 
will  not  more  likely  furnish  a basis  of  solu- 
tion for  this  puzzling  problem  than  the 
supposition  of  clouds  of  vapor  which  can 
not  be  seen,  yet  so  formidable  as  to  stop 
aerial  undulations! 

What  right  have  we,  for  example,  to 
assume  that  our  atmosphere  is  homoge- 
neous or  structureless, — the  {^articles  of 
which,  Professor  Tyndall  says,  swing  in 
ether  like  suspended  grains?  How  do  we 
know  that  the  molecules  of  the  air,  even 
in  a state  of  rest  and  when  comparatively 
free  from  aqueous  vapor,  as  in  a clear  day, 
may  not  have  been  left  in  a relation  to 
each  other  similar  to  that  of  the  molecules 
of  wood  or  other  tangible  bodies,  having 
a lamellar  structure  analogous  to  grain  or 
fiber , running  either  with  the  sound  or  at 
right  angles  to  it?  And  how  do  we  know 
but  that  the  next  current  or  cool  night 
which  intervenes  may  reconstruct  these 
invisible  strata  of  this  wonderful  substance 
called  air,  by  throwing  them  into  “pi,”  as 


the  printer  would  say,  or  transversing  the 
arrangement  of  their  particles? 

It  is  a well-known  scientific  fact  that 
sound  travels  with  the  grain  through  cer- 
tain kinds  of  timber,  such  as  fir , with 
nearly  six  times  greater  velocity  than  cross- 
wise of  the  grain,  or  at  right  angles  to  its 
exogenous  rings,  while  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  that  its  range  would  be  correspond- 
ingly enhanced  with  the  grain,  could  a 
sufficient  body  of  such  wood  be  brought 
together  into  a solid  mass  to  test  it.  (See 
Tyndall’s  Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  41.)  This 
fact  alone  ought  to  have  suggested  the 
possible  explanation  that  the  same  sonor- 
ous corpuscles  which  will  select  the  most 
favorable  arrangement  of  the  molecules 
of  wood  or  other  solid  substances  for  the 
greatest  velocity  or  range,  might  also  elect 
the  most  favorable  arrangement  of  the 
ever-shifting  air-particles,  suited  one  day 
for  a greater  penetration  than  another, 
even  when  to  visible  appearance  the  con- 
ditions seem  exactly  the  same. 

If  this  hypothesis  should  be  admitted 
(and  it  surely  seems  more  reasonable  than 
that  banks  of  invisible  aqueous  vapor  should 
stop  the  progress  of  sound,  when  it  is  known 
that  water  is  a fourfold  better  conductor 
of  sound  than  pure  air),  it  at  once  ac- 
counts for  the  problem  of  diversity  of 
range,  with  all  its  attendant  phenomena, 
when  atmospheric  conditions  appear  the 
the  same. 

Take  the  remarkable  occurrence  of 
echoes,  often  heard  returning  from  a clear 
atmosphere  but  a few  hundred  yards  dis- 
tant, with  not  a cloud  in  sight,  and  when 
no  moisture  can  be  detected  in  the  air. 
Suppose,  instead  of  clouds  of  invisible  va- 
por (which  all  considerations  go  to  render 
improbable),  that  the  grain  of  the  air,  sc 
to  speak,  or  the  lamellar  stratification  of 
its  molecules,  happen  to  be  such  as  to  run 
across  the  direction  of  the  sound-discharges 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


269 


at  a distance  of  a quarter  of  a mile  from 
the  sounding  body,  it  would  present  a less 
penetrable  surface  to  the  sonorous  pulses, 
and  a rebound  or  echo  would  be  the  con- 
sequence. But  the  rebounding  of  simple 
air-waves  from  a bank  of  pure  air  is  a self- 
evident  absurdity. 

There  are  very  few  persons  who  have 
not  at  some  time  or  other  observed  that 
the  ringing  of- a church  or  steamboat  bell, 
the  roar  of  a train  of  cars,  or  the  noise  of 
a cataract,  would  sound  out  with  great  in- 
tensity, when  at  other  times  it  would  be 
scarcely  audible  in  the  same  positions. 
Almost  universally  this  has  been  supposed 
to  be  caused  by  the  direction  of  the  wind, 
while  the  smallest  attention  shows  this  to 
be  a popular  mistake, since  the  same  effect 
will  occur  exactly  when  there  is  not  a 
breath  of  air  stirring  either  way,  and  even 
when  the  atmosphere  is  comparatively  free 
from  vapor.  What  law,  then,  can  explain 
this  remarkable  phenomenon  sobeautifully, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  so  simply,  as  the 
possible  stratification  of  the  air,  as  I have 
supposed?  That  such  grain-like  texture  in 
the  air-molecules  has  not  been  known 
heretofore  may  alone  be  attributed  to  the 
fact  that  atmosphere  itself,  though  a cor- 
poreal substance,  is  invisible. 

How  many  times,  also,  has  it  been  ob- 
served, as  an  inexplicable  mystery, by  men 
employed  in  the  Signal  Service,  and  as 
noted  by  General  Duane,  that  a sound 
from  a siren  which  can  not  be  heard  at  a 
distance  of  two  miles  in  a still,  clear  air, 
can  at  the  same  time  be  heard  distinctly 
six  or  eight  miles  farther  on  in  the  same 
direction?  What  hypothesis  can  so  simply 
and  beautifully  explain  this  as  the  one 
here  suggested?  We  have  only  to  suppose 
that  a sloping  bank  of  air,  presenting  op- 
posing gram , may  rest  on  the  water  at  a 
distance  of  two  miles  from  the  station,  and 
that  the  sound-discharges,  striking  its 


slanting  roof,  glance  over  the  heads  of  the 
observers, and  striking  another  body  of  air 
with  favoring  grain,  or  with  its  molecular 
laminae  arranged  longitudinally  with  the 
sound’s  direction,  find  no  difficulty  in  pen- 
etrating it  and  thus  reaching  the  ears  of 
observers  inclosed  by  it.  The  mere  pos- 
sibility of  this  explanation  being  the  true 
solution,  with  its  great  simplicity,  being 
applicable  to  every  conceivable  variety  of 
such  phenomena,  most  of  them  now  re- 
garded entirely  inexplicable,  would  seem 
to  commend  it  to  favorable  attention.  The 
greatest  difficulty  it  will  have  to  encounter 
will  be  the  mischievous  idea  of  homoge- 
neity wherever  heterogeneity  can  not  be 
distinctly  traced,  or  where  structural  ar- 
rangement can  not  be  identified  under 
microscopical  observation  or  by  philo- 
sophical tests,  which  has  done  much  to 
forestall  explanatory  investigation  in  more 
than  one  branch  of  science,  as  will  be 
seen  when  we  come  to  consider  Professor 
Haeckel’s  evidence  of  spontaneous  gener- 
ation in  the  next  chapter. 

I do  not  venture  the  foregoing  as  abso- 
lutely the  true  explanation  of  the  puzzling 
problem  of  diversity  in  the  range  of  sound 
under  apparently  similar  conditions  of  at- 
mosphere, but  throw  it  out  for  what  it  is 
worth,  willingly  trusting  the  science  of  the 
future  to  unfold  a more  rational  solution. 

In  view  of  the  facts  which  this  single 
question  of  atmospheric  currents  and  their 
influence  on  sound  has  developed,  and  in 
view  of  the  numerous  problems  which 
seem  hopelessly  unsolvable  by  the  current 
theory  of  wave-motion,  may  we  not  safely 
predict  that  a revolution  is  near  at  hand, 
when  light,  as  by  a new  scientific  revela- 
tion, shall  break  upon  the  world, and  when 
the  old  hypothesis  of  sound-waves  will  be 
utterly  abandoned  by  physicists  for  the 
vastly  simpler  and  more  rational  view  of 
corpuscular  emanations, — against  which, 


270 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


as  the  attentive  reader  must  have  observed, 
lies  none  of  the  immeasurable  difficulties 
which  everywhere  confront  the  wave- 
theory?  With  this  always  consistent  solu- 
tion of  every  conceivable  problem  which 
the  phenomena  of  sound  can  suggest  made 
the  rule  of  our  scientific  faith  and  practice 
on  this  question,  might  there  not  be  dis- 
coveries made  now  undreamt  of,  and  pro- 
cesses of  sonorous  penetration  devised  for 
piercing  the  densest  fogs, which  would  not 
only  defy  the  supposed  stratification  of  the 
air,  but  all  banks  and  clouds  of  vapor, 
visible  and  invisible?  That  such  discov- 
eries have  not  yet  been  made  maybe  safely 
attributed  to  the  erroneous  basis  of  all  our 
investigations  on  the  subject  of  sound- 
transmission,  or  all  true  conceptions  of 
even  what  sound  is.  To  be  wholly  ignor- 
ant of  the  nature  of  sound  would  seem 
necessarily  to  involve  very  imperfect  ap- 
prehensions as  to  its  true  mode  of  propa- 
gation or  manner  of  conduction,  as  well 
as  to  the  most  efficient  means  of  utilizing 
it  to  the  best  advantage.  Truly  may  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  say, as  he  does  in  his  Third 
Edition  of  Lectures  on  Sound,  page  328: — 

“Assuredly  no  question  of  science  ever  stood  so 
much  in  need  of  revision  as  this  of  the  transmission 
of  sound  through  the  atmosphere.  Slowly  but  surely 
we  mastered  the  question;  and  the  further  we  ad- 
vanced the  more  plainly  it  appeared  that  our  reputed 
knowledge  regarding  it  was  wrong  from  beginning 
to  end.” 

How  literally  yet  unintentionally  does 
this  great  authority  express  the  present 
state  of  true  scientific  progress  upon  this 
whole  question  of  sound,  and  how  unwit- 
tingly has  he  confessed  the  truth  when  he 
says  “that  our  reputed  knowledge  regard- 
ing it  was  wrong  from  beginning  to  end"? 
When  he  comes  to  realize  that  his  own 
oracular  words  are  broadly  true,  and  that 
the  very  foundation  of  all  knowlege  on 
the  subject — the  Undulatory  Theory  itself 
— is  an  absurd  fallacy  “from  beginning  to 


end,”  he  will  then  be  able  to  call  for  “re- 
vision,” with  all  that  the  term  implies. 

A few  pages  back  I took  occasion  to 
animadvert  somewhat  severely  on  the  first 
two  illustrations  employed  in  Professor 
Tyndall’s  course  of  lectures,  namely,  the 
row  of  glass  bails  in  a groove,  and  the  row 
of  boys,  in  which  he  attempted  to  show 
that  a body  moving  through  the  atmos- 
phere pushes  the  air-particles  ahead  of  it, 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  communicates 
motion  directly  ahead,  as  the  balls  and  the 
boys  communicate  their  motion  one  to 
another  in  a forward  line  when  the  hind- 
most ones  receive  a push. 

I now  call  the  reader’s  attention  to 
another  illustration  (Fig.  4,  in  Lectures  on 
Sound),  by  which  the  lecturer  attempts  to 
convey  a similar  idea,  but  which,  if  any- 
thing, is  a far  more  signal  failure  than  the 
others,  because  its  fallacy  is  so  clearly 
self-evident. 

I will  first  briefly  describe  his  illustra- 
tion and  the  lesson  taught  by  it,  as  shown 
in  the  engraving,  which  represents  a tin 
tube  fifteen  feet  long  and  two  inches  in 
diameter,  having  a wide  flaring  mouth  at 
one  end  and  a small  conical  outlet  at  the 
other  for  the  purpose  of  concentrating  and 
directing  the  sound-pulse,  as  he  calls  it, 
against  a lighted  candle-wick,  thus  show- 
ing how  a sound-wave  may  be  actually 
made  to  “ blow  the  candle  out" ! He  essays 
to  demonstrate  all  this  before  his  audience 
by  placing  the  candle-flame  directly  in 
front  of  the  conical  outlet  of  the  tube,  and 
then  clapping  two  books  together  at  the 
other  end,  thus  directing  the  discharge  of 
sound  or  the  compressed  wave  generated 
thereby  into  its  bell-shaped  mouth.  The 
result  is,  the  candle  is,  of  course,  blown 
out;  and, on  the  strength  of  it, this  accurate 
scientific  authority  declares  to  his  audience 
and  to  the  world  that  it  is  the  sound- 
“ pulse”  and  not  a “puff  of  air"  which 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


271 


produces  this  result!  But  I must  quote 
his  own  literal  words,  or  I am  sure  the 
scientific  reader,  it  unacquainted  with  his 
book,  would  be  tempted  to  doubt  the  ac- 
curacy of  my  representation : — 

“At  the  distant  end  of  the  tube  I place  a lighted 
candle,  c,  fig.  4.  When  I clap  my  hands  at  this 
end,  the  flame  instantly  ducks  down.  It  is  not 
quite  extinguished,  but  it  is  forcibly  depressed. 
When  I clap  two  books,  B B,  together,  I blow  the 
candle  out.  You  may  here  observe,  in  a rough  way, 
the  speed  with  which  the  sound-wave  is  propagated. 
The  instant  I clap,  the  flame  is  extinguished  ; there 
is  no  sensible  interval  between  the  clap  and  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  flame.  I do  not  say  that  the  time 
required  by  the  sound  to  travel  through  this  tube  is 
immeasurably  short,  but  simply  that  the  interval  is 
too  short  for  your  senses  to  appreciate  it.  To  show 
you  that  it  is  a pulse  and  not  a puff  of  air , I fill  one 
end  of  the  tube  with  smoke  of  brown  paper.  On 
clapping  the  books  together,  no  trace  of  this  smoke 
is  ejected  from  the  other  end.  The  pulse  has  passed 
through  both  smoke  and  air  without  carrying  either 
of  them  along  with  it.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  12. 

As  astonished  as  the  reader  no  doubt  is 
at  this  quotation,  it  is  absolutely  the  lan- 
guage of  Professor  Tyndall,  whose  name 
is  as  familiar  on  questions  of  science  as 
any  household  word  to  persons  who  are 
accustomed  to  reading  the  papers.  To 
suppose  it  possible  that  a physicist  could 
be  found,  making  any  pretensions  as  a 
public  lecturer,  who  could  have  deliber- 
ately written  out  and  published  to  the 
world  such  a statement  of  a scientific  ex- 
periment in  which  he  so  utterly  misappre- 
hended the  entire  operation,  passes  belief, 
and  would  be  scouted  at  once,  except  for 
the  fact  that  we  have  the  evidence  before 
us  in  such  unmistakable  words  that  it  can 
not  be  gainsaid.  And  it  equally  staggers 
credulity  that  an  intelligent  audience, com- 
posed largely  of  scientific  students,  could 
attentively  listen  to  this  lecture  and  not 
have  detected  the  fallacious  character  of 
the  doctrine  taught  and  the  misguiding 
tendency  of  the  illustrations  presented. 


These  critical  students,  however,  looked 
on  approvingly,  and  saw  this  eminent  lec- 
turer clap  the  books  together  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  force  the  air  through  the 
tube  and  thus  extinguish  the  candle,  and 
yet  never  suspected  the  transparent  nature 
of  the  deception,  even  after  the  Professor 
had  flatly  stultified  himself  by  saying  that 
“when  I clap  two  books  together,  I blow 
the  candle  out”!  Why  did  they  not  ask 
him  to  explain  how  he  could  ublou> ” a 
candle  out  without  a “puff  of  air,”  or  a 
“puff”  of  some  other  material  substance? 
He  might  as  well  talk  of  washing  his  hands 
without  some  kind  of  fluid!  Sound  can 
not  “ blow ” out  a flame,  or  even  stir  it, 
unless  it  should  happen  to  be  tuned  in 
unison,  as  elsewhere  explained,  of  which 
the  reader  will  soon  be  abundantly  con- 
vinced. 

This  jumbling  of  a “sound-pulse”  and 
a condensed  air-wave  together, as  one  and 
the  same  thing,  by  which  the  candle  was 
blown  out,  is  in  exact  keeping  with  this 
same  lecturer’s  memorable  solution  of 
magazine  explosions  and  the  breaking  of 
all  the  windows  at  Erith  by  a “sound- 
pulse,”  as  so  completely  turned  against  the 
wave-theory  at  pages  104,  105,  and  on- 
ward, which  the  reader  would  do  well  to 
re-examine.  Believing  it  possible,  as  does 
Professor  Tyndall,  for  a “sound-pulse”  to 
“blow”  down  a house,  or  even  “blow” 
human  beings  to  fragments,  as  has  hun- 
dreds of  times  been  done  near  an  explod- 
ing magazine,  it  would  have  been  strange 
indeed  and  flatly  contradictory  for  him 
not  to  teach  that  it  was  a sound-pulse  in- 
stead of  a “puff  of  air”  which  blew  out  the 
candle  when  the  books  were  clapped  to- 
gether at  the  big  end  of  the  tube ! A scien- 
tific authority  who  was  capable  of  believ- 
ing and  teaching,  as  he  did  in  the  same 
lecture,  such  infinite  nonsense  as  that  a 
church  could  be  wrecked  by  a sound-pulse, 


272 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


however  intense  or  however  produced,  and 
who  was  incapable  of  distinguishing  such 
a pulse  from  a compressed  air-wave, could 
not  be  expected  to  possess  a very  correct 
comprehension  of  this  experiment  with 
the  tin  tube,  or  to  apprehend  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  action  on  a lighted  candle  of 
clapping  two  books  together.  To  have 
admitted  the  simple  and  undeniable  truth 
that  it  was  really  a “puff  of  air”  and 
nothing  else  which  blew  out  the  candle, 
would  have  been  to  utterly  stultify  all  he 
was  about  to  say  a few  pages  ahead  in  re- 
gard to  magazine  explosions, since  the  two 
phenomena  would  have  been  directly  op- 
posite. 

Readers  of  this  review,  if  disciples  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  and  especially  those 
scientific  students  who  so  quietly  and  ap- 
provingly listened  to  his  lectures,  will  now 
have  an  abundant  reason  to  smile  at  their 
own  credulity  in  ever  believing  such  a 
babyism  as  that  it  could  have  been  a sound- 
pulse  or  anything  save  a“puff  of  air”which 
produced  this  effect  of  blowing  out  the 
candle.  I ask  them  to  give  me  their  un- 
biassed attention  for  a single  moment. 

As  a proof  that  it  was  “not  a puff  of  air” 
which  produced  this  result,  but  a “sound- 
pulse,”  look  at  the  ocular  demonstration 
which  the  lecturer  had  ready  at  hand,  and 
which  seemed  to  be  such  a clincher  as  to 
silence  and  literally  overwhelm  any  scien- 
tific doubting  Thomas  who  might  happen 
to  be  in  the  assembly!  “I  fill  one  end  of 
the  tube  with  the  “ smoke  of  brown  paper" ! 
Which  “end,”  Professor?  Why,  of  course 
he  was  too  shrewd  and  skilled  a public 
lecturer  and  experimenter  to  fill  the  wrong 
end  of  the  tube,  or  the  one  nearest  to  the 
candle,  for  he  well  knew  (or  if  he  did  not 
know  it  he  is  to  be  pitied)  that  if  he  had 
filled  the  small  end  with  smoke,  instead 
of  the  large  end  fifteen  feet  away,  a visible 
“puff"  would  have  greeted  his  audience  every 


time  the  boohs  came  together,  and  would  thus 
have  ingloriously  exploded  the  whole  de- 
ception! Hence,  he  was  cautious  enough 
to  put  the  smoke  into  the  large  end  of  the 
tube,  so  that  it  would  be  compelled  to 
travel  fifteen  feet  before  it  could  pass  out 
at  the  small  end,  which  would  have  re- 
quired at  least  five  or  six  powerful  claps 
of  the  books  to  carry  it  that  distance!  Of 
course  this  was  purely  accidental,  as  we 
must  charitably  suppose,  since  it  never 
occurred  to  this  able  and  authoritative  in- 
vestigator of  science  to  fill  the  entire  tube 
“with  the  smoke  of  brown  paper,”  and 
then  see  whether  it  would  “puff,”  which 
would  have  been  more  easily  done  than 
filling  “one  end”  of  it,  because  special 
care  had  to  be  used  not  to  let  the  smoke 
creep  ahead  too  far  into  the  tube,  or  too 
near  to  the  outlet, lest  an  accidental“puff  ” 
should  undeceive  the  audience, — while 
this  critical  class  of  scientific  students 
equally  forgot  to  request  him  to  do  so! 
They  constituted,  to  say  the  least,  an  au- 
dience remarkable  for  deference  to  au- 
thority if  not  for  scientific  perspicacity, 
and  proved  themselves  unprecedented  for 
the  marvelous  character  of  their  amiabil- 
ity,— literally  sitting  there  and  taking 
down  the  logic  as  well  as  “smoke  of  brown 
paper, ’’without  asking  a question  or  offer- 
ing the  least  interruption  except  to  ap- 
plaud! 

It  is  true  it  seemed  impossible  to  suspect 
a trick  of  prestidigitation  or  anything 
wrong  on  such  an  occasion, especially  from 
the  apparently  frank  and  candid  style  of 
the  lecturer.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  tell 
his  auditors,  in  the  plainest  language,  that 
it  was  “ one  end  of  the  tube”  only  which 
he  filled  “with  the  smoke  of  brown  paper,” 
and  they  saw  distinctly,  when  he  put  the 
lighted  brown  paper  into  it,  which  “end” 
of  the  tube  he  meant;  so  there  was  ap- 
parently nothing  unfair  or  disingenuous 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


273 


in  the  performance.  Then,  after  filling 
this  particular  “end  of  the  tube,”  he  hon- 
estly clapped  the  books  together  in  front 
of  the  bell-shaped  mouth, without  “a  trace 
of  this  smoke”  being  “ejected  from  the 
other  end”!  After  such  a conclusive  dem- 
onstration, is  it  any  wonder  that  he  should 
have  so  triumphantly  added  : “ the  pulse  has 
passed  through  both  smoke  arid  air  without 
carrying  cither  of  them  along  with  it” l 
But  now  I ask,  seriously,  how  did  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  know  that  no  air  was  car- 
ried out  of  the  small  end  of  the  tube  when 
he  clapped  the  books?  Evidently  in  the 
same  way  exactly  in  which  he  knew  that 
no  smoke  was  carried  out, — he  did  not  see  it! 
The  reason  why  he  did  not  see  the  smoke 
pass  out  was  because  it  could  not  get  out, 
since  it  was  impossible  for  it  to  travel  the 
whole  length  of  the  tube  at  a single  clap! 
This,  to  say  the  least, was  a good  and  suffi- 
cient reason.  Smoke  being  a visible  sub- 
stance, it  was  absolutely  essential  to  the 
success  of  the  experiment  that  it  should 
not  pass  out  when  the  books  were  clapped, 
or  it  evidently  would  have  been  seen  by 
the  audience.  Hence,  as  before  stated, 
that  was  mechanically  provided  against 
by  placing  the  lighted  brown  paper  in  the 
proper  end  of  the  tube  fifteen  feet  away 
from  its  outlet.  But  the  air  being  entirely 
invisible , it  made  no  difference  if  the  tube 
was  full  of  it,  as  it  necessarily  was,  and  it 
mattered  not  a whit  if  the  air  puffed  out 
at  the  small  end  every  time  the  books  came 
together,  as  it  manifestly  did,  it  was  the 
easiest  thing  in  the  world  for  this  eminent 
lecturer  to  assume  and  announce  to  his 
audience  that  “the  pulse  has  passed  through 
both  smoke  and  air  without  carrying  either 
of  them  along  with  it,”  because  he  knew 
very  well  that  the  most  argus-eyed  scien- 
tific student  present  could  not  see  a “puff 
of  air”  even  if  it  did  pass  out! 

Here,  again,  we  have  this  same  invisible 


dodge  which  was  so  convenient  in  discuss- 
ing the  amplitude  of  sound-waves, in  which 
the  air-particles  were  claimed  to  oscillate 
“to  and  fro  with  the  motions  of  pendu- 
lums,” and  as  having  “comparatively  a 
large  amplitude  of  vibration,”  yet  which 
turned  out  to  be  no  amplitude  at  all — not 
even  enough  to  be  seen  by  the  aid  of  a 
microscope — when  brought  to  bear  on  iron 
with  waves  admitted  to  be  seventeen  times 
as  long!  Air  being  wholly  invisible,  these 
physicists  seem  to  claim  the  right  of  as- 
suming anything  in  regard  to  it  which  hap- 
pened at  the  time  to  suit  their  theory,  ap- 
pearing to  feel  safe  against  adverse  criti- 
cism, since  no  one  can  see  a “puff  of  air,” 
and  therefore,  as  they  suppose,  dare  not 
contradict  them! 

But  I have  concluded  that  this  invisible 
dodge  shall  end  here  and  now.  It  has 
been  played  by  these  learned  investigators 
of  science  and  imposed  upon  a credulous 
world  just  about  long  enough.  I here  un- 
dertake to  suggest  a few  practical  scientific 
tests  in  connection  with  this  experiment 
of  the  tin  tube, each  one  of  which  is  worth 
a thousand  such  shallow  legerdemain  tricks 
as  filling  “one  end  of  the  tube  with  the 
smoke  of  brown  paper,” — tests  which  any 
student  can  at  once  demonstrate  for  him- 
self who  is  at  all  interested  in  ascertaining 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sound,  or  who  may  care  to  know  the  exact 
scientific  weight  of  Professor  Tyndall’s 
authoritative  statements,  even  on  simple 
questions  of  fact.  These  experimental 
tests  are  as  follows: — 

1. — Take  a common  paper  bag,  such  as 
grocers  use  for  putting  up  packages, having 
the  air  completely  pressed  out  of  it,  and, 
after  tying  its  mouth  closely  around  the 
small  end  of  the  tube,  proceed  to  clap  the 
books  at  the  large  end  as  described  by 
Professor  Tyndall,  and  I pledge  my  scien- 
tific veracity  and  all  the  reputation  I ever 


274 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


expect  to  have, that  the  first  clap  will  partly 
fill  the  bag,  and  that  it  will  be  distended 
more  and  more  at  each  succeeding  clap 
till  it  is  entirely  filled  and  rounded  out 
with  air! 

This  high  authority  on  science,  whose 
achievements  are  in  every  one’s  mouth, 
assures  his  audience  that  no  air  is  “ejected 
from  the  other  end”  of  the  tube,— nothing 
at  all,  in  fact,  but  sound,  since  “the  pulse 
has  passed  through  both  smoke  and  air 
without  carrying  either  of  them  along  with 
it.”  Hence,  we  have  the  astonishing  phe- 
nomenon of  a paper  bag  stuffed  full  of 
sound, which  can  be  transported  from  place 
to  place  like  so  much  sugar  or  salt! 

Who  will  dare  hereafter  to  look  upon 
Munchausen’s  story  of  the  frozen  horn  as 
an  improbable  narrative,  with  its  music 
thawing  out  in  melodious  strains  hours 
after  it  had  been  congealed  while  the  bu- 
gler was  blowing  it?  It  may  turn  out  to 
be  no  acoustical  joke,  as  generally  sup- 
posed, if  there  is  the  least  truth  in  the 
foregoing  description  of  the  “scientific” 
experiments  of  this  eminent  investigator, 
whose  discoveries  in  connection  with  a 
simple  tin  tube  utterly  distance  the  telephone 
and  its  lineal  descendant  the  phonograph j 
for  these  only  claim  to  transmit  by  elec- 
tricity the  motions  which  generate  the 
sound, and  then  preserve  their  impressions 
on  foil,  by  which  they  can  be  repeated 
in  the  same  manner,  and,  if  desired,  at  a 
future  time, — while  Professor  Tyndall’s 
great  improvement  actually  bags  up  the  tone 
itself, like  dessicated  fruits, in  pint  or  quart 
packages,  ready  for  use ! There  is  no  mis- 
take about  this  startling  deduction;  for 
whatever  passes  through  the  tube,  on  clap- 
ping the  books  together, fills  the  paper  bag, 
whether  it  be  air , smoke , or  sound ; and  as 
Professor  Tyndall,  with  the  whole  force  of 
his  great  reputation  as  a scientist,  has  pub- 
lished to  the  world  that  it  is  nothing  but 


sound  which  passes  out  of  the  tube,  hence 
the  undeniable  correctness  of  the  criticism. 

2.  — Place  the  lighted  candle  at  the  small 
end  of  the  tube,  as  described  by  the  lec- 
turer, and,  instead  of  clapping  the  books 
together  toward  the  bell-shaped  mouth  in 
such  a manner  as  to  drive  the  compressed 
wave  into  it,  let  the  books  be  held  sidewise 
toward  the  expanded  entrance,  and,  al- 
though they  may  be  clapped  with  ten  times 
the  force  and  produce  a sound  ten  times 
as  loud,  this  learned  physicist  will  find  to 
his  confusion  that  it  will  neither  “blow 
the  candle  out”  nor  make  it  “duck,”  sim- 
ply because  in  this  position  it  drives  no 
“puff  of  air”  through  the  tube,  notwith- 
standing the  actual  sound  passing  through 
it  may  have  ten  times  the  intensity  as  when 
the  candle  was  extinguished.  It  does  not 
require  a scientific  reader  to  see  that  this 
single  fact  completely  annihilates  Professor 
Tyndall’s  whole  argument  based  on  this 
experiment  of  a tin  tube,  and  with  it  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  which,  in  every  one 
of  its  phases,  is  in  perfect  keeping  with 
this  experiment,  sb  transparently  absurd 
that  even  a stupid  schoolboy  ought  to  be 
ashamed  to  make  it. 

3.  — Vary  the  test  by  leaving  the  candle 
as  before,  and  instead  of  clapping  the 
naked  books  together  so  as  to  cause  a 
report , let  their  sides  be  cushioned, — or, 
rather,  which  is  better,  let  them  be  pre- 
vented from  coming  entirely  together  by 
an  intervening  piece  of  soft  rubber,  and 
although  no  audible  sound  will  be  pro- 
duced, yet  such  a noiseless  “clap”  will 
“blow  the  candle  out”  exactly  the  same 
as  in  the  former  case,  where  the  clapping 
of  the  books  generated  a sharp  report,  and 
for  the  same  reason,  namely,  that  it  was 
not  the  sound  at  all  which  extinguished 
the  flame,  but  the  “puff  of  air”  which  will 
pass  through  the  tube  with  precisely  the 
same  facility  when  books  are  cushioned 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


27S 


and  noiseless  as  when  they  are  naked  and 
produce  a sharp  sound.  Yet  this  renowned 
lecturer,  notwithstanding  all  his  reputed 
scientific  skill, could  think  of  none  of  these 
simple  and  practical  tests,  by  which  to 
have  so  easily  demolished  his  illustration 
of  the  tin  tube  and  lighted  candle,  and  by 
which  he  had  so  cleverly,  though  perhaps 
unintentionally, deceived  the  public.  I say 
perhaps  unintentionally , because  I am  not 
yet  ready  to  believe  that  this  lecturer  knew 
any  better, but  rather  that  he  actually  sup- 
posed that  it  was  a sound-pulse  and  “not  a 
puff  of  air”  which  blew  out  the  candle. 

For  my  own  part, however,  I would  about 
as  soon  have  the  reputation  of  being  a little 
tricky  in  my  public  experiments  on  scien- 
tific questions  as  to  prove  myself  so  super- 
ficially innocent  of  all  practical  or  theoret- 
ical knowledge  of  the  simplest  laws  of  me- 
chanics, pneumatics,  and  acoustics,  while 
attempting  to  instruct  the  public.  It  seems 
strange,  to  say  the  least,  that  a physicist 
who  was  so  ingenious,  if  not  ingenuous,  as 
to  put  “smoke  of  brown  paper”  into  “one 
etld  of  the  tube,”  and  to  make  sure  that  this 
end  was  the  one  fifteen  feet  away  from  the 
outlet,  ought  to  have  possessed  sufficient 
originality  to  have  thought  of  some  one  of 
the  practical  tests  just  named, — either  one 
of  which, if  fairly  made,  would  have  utterly 
exploded  that  tin  tube  experiment,  and 
with  it  the  entire  wave-theory  of  sound, 
because  the  principle  involved  in  this  ex- 
periment—that  a condensed  air-wave  and 
sound-pulse  are  one  and  the  same  thing — 
lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  current 
hypothesis,  as  every  well-informed  scien- 
tific student  knows. 

4. — And  lastly,  if  our  eminent  physicist 
was  really  honest  in  his  experiments  (which 
common  charity  compels  us  to  assume  till 
the  contrary  is  demonstrated),  and  did  not 
know  any  better  than  to  make  such  a care- 
ful blunder  with  the  “smoke  of  brown 


paper,”  he  has  now  an  excellent  opportu- 
nity, by  a final  and  simple  test  which  I will 
name,  of  not  only  informing  himself  on 
these  fundamental  questions  of  physical 
science,  but  of  placing  himself  right  upon 
the  record  by  publishing  to  the  world  a 
correction  of  his  book  on  “Sound,”  and 
thus  undoing  to  the  extent  of  his  ability 
the  mischief  he  has  already  wrought  in  so 
grossly  misleading  the  public. 

On  reading  this  friendly  criticism  (for  I 
assure  him  that  these  animadversions  are 
entirely  friendly,  though  necessarily  se- 
vere), let  him  at  once  bring  out  his  appa- 
ratus employed  on  the  occasion  of  those 
lectures,  and  instead  of  filling  “one  end  of 
the  tube  with  the  smoke  of  brown  paper,” 
let  him  fill  the  whole  tube,  and  then  pro- 
ceed to  clap  the  books  together  the  same 
as  he  did  to  “blow  the  candle  out ,”  and  if 
he  does  not  see  a puff  of  smoke  “ ejected  from 
the  other  end”  every  time  the  books  come  to- 
gether, he  has  the  fullest  permission  to  pub- 
lish the  author  of  the  Evolution  of  Sound 
to  the  world  as  the  great  anonymous  North 
American  falsifier  and  slanderer,  and  all 
the  people  shall  say  “Amen!” 

Should  even  this  test  not  prove  entirely 
satisfactory  to  the  Professor  that  his  whole 
experiment  was  a baseless  and  superficial 
mistake,  after  he  has  witnessed,  as  he  will, 
the  ejection  of  a dozen  separate  puffs  of 
smoke, let  him  fill  the  tube  with  the  fumes 
of  burning  sulphur, and  then  place  his  nose 
in  the  exact  position  previously  occupied 
by  the  candle  while  his  assistant  claps  the 
books,  and  I undertake  to  guarantee  that 
after  the  first  clap  he  will  become  a con- 
vert to  the  new  theory,  and  get  away  as 
soon  as  possible,  with  a well-defined  con- 
viction, which  will  be  apt  to  stay  by  him 
as  long  as  he  lives,  that  something  besides 
sound  passes  out  of  the  tube  on  clapping 
the  books! 

In  view  of  the  undeniable  correctness 


276 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  the  four  or  five  tests  here  suggested,  I 
now  appeal  to  the  logical  intelligence  of 
the  readers  of  this  monograph,  if  it  is  pos- 
sible for  a theory  to  be  based  on  scientific 
principles  which  ignores  such  simple  truths, 
and  which  is  continually,  as  seen  during 
the  course  of  this  discussion,  forced  to  re- 
sort to  such  transparent  fallacies  as  the 
experiments  under  examination. 

Is  it  at  all  likely,  or  even  conceivable, 
that  a true  scientific  theory  would  have  to 
depend  for  its  existence  on  the  most  super- 
ficial and  contradictory  errors,  the  jumbling 
together  of  the  most  self-evident  unanalo- 
gous  effects  and  making  them  one  and  the 
same  thing,  as  has  been  so  clearly  and  re- 
peatedly pointed  out  from  the  commence- 
ment of  this  review?  How  it  is  possible 
for  a physicist  to  acquire  such  a world-wide 
fame,  whose  scientific  writings  from  be- 
ginning to  end  are  filled  with  just  such 
self-contradictions,  puerilities,  and  prac- 
tical absurdities,  as  those  here  being  ex- 
posed, defies  the  powers  of  human  imagi- 
nation to  conceive. 

While  I freely  admit  that  many  of  the 
illustrations  presented  in  Professor  Tyn- 
dall’s book  on  “Sound”  represent  phases 
of  sonorous  phenomena  on  which  there 
can  be  no  controversy,  such  as  the  ringing 
of  a bell  in  vacuo  which  gives  off  no  sound, 
the  vibratory  motion  of  strings,  the  reflec- 
tion and  convergence  of  sound,  the  action 
of  singing  flames, &c., — showing  clear  con- 
ceptions of  the  problems  discussed,  yet  it 
may  be  safely  asserted  that  not  one  single 
illustration  can  be  pointed  to  which  direct- 
ly involves  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  wave- 
hypothesis  which  can  not  be  shown  to  be 
based  on  a pure  misconception  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  laws  of  mechanics,  acoustics, 
and  pneumatics,  involved.  I fancy  the  at- 
tentive reader  of  this  treatise  has  already 
seen  enough  to  create  at  least  a strong  pre- 
sumption in  his  mind  that  there  may  be  a 


good  deal  of  truth  in  this  general  arraign- 
ment of  the  theory,  as  well  as  its  most 
popular  exponent;  at  all  events,  sufficient 
to  warrant  a careful  examination  of  what 
is  to  follow. 

Not  to  make  this  discussion  too  ex- 
tended, I shall  undertake  to  examine  only 
the  very  strongest  points  made  by  Profes- 
sor Tyndall  during  this  course  of  lectures 
in  favor  of  the  current  hypothesis,  know- 
ing, as  the  reader  must,  that  if  the  argu- 
ments deemed  most  conclusive  fall  to  the 
ground,  the  weaker  ones  do  not  require 
refutation. 

I now  call  attention  to  an  experiment 
made,  apparently,  for  the  express  purpose 
of  demonstrating  the  truth  of  the  wave- 
theory,  and  which,  if  based  on  a truthful 
representation  of  facts,  would  have  been 
most  difficult  to  explain  except  in  con- 
formity with  that  hypothesis.  I may  add 
that  to  a superficial  reader  it  would  per- 
haps come  nearer  what  might  be  called 
demonstrative  evidence  than  any  other  il- 
lustration in  the  book.  But  the  facts  being 
entirely  misapprehended  by  the  lecturer, 
as  I proceed  to  show,  the  argument  built 
upon  them  must  necessarily  break  down 
on  simply  correcting  the  facts. 

To  prepare  the  reader  for  this  experi- 
ment, I will  state  that  it  is  known  to  every 
student  of  acoustics  that  a tuning-fork, 
when  sounded  over  the  mouth  of  a jar, 
having  a depth  corresponding  exactly  to 
its  own  pitch  or  vibrational  number,  will 
produce  a loud  and  very  pure  sound, 
caused  by  the  resonance  of  the  column  of 
air  vibrating  in  unison  with  the  sounding 
fork;  whereas  the  slightest  increase  or 
decrease  in  the  depth  of  this  column,  by 
pouring  out  or  adding  water,  will  corre- 
spondingly diminish  this  resonance,  or  de- 
stroy it  entirely  if  the  variation  from  exact 
resonant  depth  be  carried  to  any  consid- 
erable extent. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


277 


Professor  Tyndall  made  this  experiment 
before  his  audience  with  a tuning-fork 
having  256  vibrations  in  a second,  and  a 
consequent  wave-length,  according  to  the 
current  theory,  of  52  inches  from  conden- 
sation to  condensation, — that  is, supposing 
the  velocity  of  sound  to  be  1120  feet  in  a 
second,  as  it  is  at  a temperature  of  about 
60  degrees  Fahrenheit. 

The  lecturer  held  the  sounding  fork 
over  the  jar  in  the  usual  way, while  gently 
pouring  in  water  from  a pitcher  till  the 
column  of  air  had  reached  the  exact  reso- 
nant depth  corresponding  to  the  pitch  of 
the  fork,  when  the  sudden  outburst  of  tone 
warned  him  to  desist.  And  right  at  this 
point  comes  in  the  supposed  conclusive 
argument  in  favor  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sound.  With  a two-foot  rule  he  measured 
the  depth  of  this  chamber  in  the  presence 
of  his  audience,  and  declared  it  to  be  13 
inches,  or  exactly  one  quarter  of  the  wave- 
length from  a fork  of  that  pitch,  or  having 
that  number  of  vibrations  per  second. 

Of  course  this  was,  to  say  the  least,  a 
singular  and  even  surprising  coincidence, 
on  any  other  supposition  than  the  truth  of 
the  wave-theory.  But  his  explanation  of 
the  matter  made  the  remarkable  character 
of  the  coincidence  still  stronger.  He  ex- 
plained the  problem  in  this  wise:  The  con- 
densation of  the  sound-wave  sent  off  from 
the  fork  passes  down  to  the  water  and 
back  (26  inches)  in  half  a second,  suc- 
ceeded by  the  rarefaction,  which  makes 
the  same  round  trip  in  the  same  time,  thus 
making  the  complete  wave-length  of  52 
inches  in  a second,  as  it  ought  to  be  ac- 
cording to  the  requirements  of  the  theory. 

Under  the  circumstances, I can  not  blame 
his  auditors  for  applauding  this  beautiful 
experiment,  as  it  was  not  possible  for  them 
to  detect  any  trick  or  misrepresentation  of 
facts,  seated  in  the  auditorium,  as  was  so 
clearly  apparent,  and  ought  to  have  been 


detected  even  by  a schoolboy,  with  the 
illustration  of  the  “tin  tube”  and  “smoke 
of  brown  paper,”  just  examined.  Without 
having  practically  gone  over  this  somewhat 
complex  experiment  with  the  suitable  ap- 
paratus, no  one  would  have  been  inclined 
to  doubt  the  actual  results  as  given  by 
Professor  Tyndall,  especially  with  preju- 
dices already  in  favor  of  the  current  hy- 
pothesis of  sound.  I am  not  therefore 
surprised  that  the  lecturer  succeeded  in 
completely  deceiving  his  auditors  (whether 
intentionally  or  unintentionally  the  reader 
shall  decide),  and  sending  them  away  sat- 
isfied with  the  truth  of  the  wave-theory. 
But  a day  of  reckoning  has  to  come  sooner 
or  later  for  all  our  errors,  whether  sins 
of  commission  or  omission.  The  learned 
physicist  has  no  more  right  to  expect  im- 
munity from  a just  retribution  than  the 
most  ignorant  pretender  and  upstart  in 
science;  and,  in  fact,  not  so  much,  since 
to  whom  much  is  given  of  him  shall  much 
be  required. 

Before  undertaking  to  expose  the  fallacy 
of  this  illustrated  argument,  I must,  as 
usual,  and  in  justice  both  to  myself  and  to 
Professor  Tyndall,  quote  his  exact  words, 
or  at  least  make  a sufficient  citation  to 
convey  his  meaning  in  his  own  very  clear 
and  explicit  language: — 

“A  series  of  tuning-forks  stands  before  you,  whose 
rates  of  vibration  have  been  determined  by  the  siren. 
This  one,  you  will  remember,  vibrates  256  times  in 
a second,  the  length  of  the  sonorous  wave  which  it 
produces  being,  therefore,  4 feet  4 inches.  The 
fork  is  now  detached  from  its  case,  so  that  when 
struck  against  its  pad  you  hardly  hear  it.  I hold 
the  vibrating  fork  over  this  glass  jar,  A B,  fig.  87, 
18  inches  deep;  but  you  still  fail  to  hear  the  sound 
of  the  fork.  Preserving  the  fork  in  its  position,  I 
pour  water  with  the  least  possible  noise  into  the  jar. 
The  column  of  air  underneath  the  fork  becomes 
shorter  as  the  water  rises.  The  sound,  you  observe, 
augments  in  intensity;  and  when  the  water  reaches 
a certain  level  it  bursts  forth  with  extraordinary 
power.  . . . Experimenting  thus  I learn  that  there 
is  one  particular  length  of  the  column  of  air  which. 


278 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


when  the  fork  is  placed  above  it,  produces  a max- 
imum augmentation  of  the  sound.  This  re-enforce- 
ment  of  the  sound  is  named  resonance.  . . . Our  next 
question  is,  what  is  the  length  of  the  column  of  air 
which  most  powerfully  resounds  to  this  fork?  By 
measurement  with  a two-foot  rtde  I find  it  to  be 
thirteen  inches.  But  the  length  of  the  wave  emitted 
by  the  fork  is  52  inches  ; hence,  the  length  of  the 
column  of  air  which  resounds  to  the  fork  is  equal 
to  one  fourth  of  the  length  of  the  wave  produced  by 
the  fork.  This  rule  is  general,  and  might  be  illus- 
trated by  any  other  of  the  forks  instead  of  this  one.” 
— Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  172. 

To  satisfy  myself  as  to  the  exact  facts 
in  regard  to  this  experiment,  and  to  be 
certain  that  my  statements  in  review  should 
be  correct,  I obtained  from  Professor 
Robert  Spice,  the  eminent  acoustician  of 
Brooklyn, N.  Y., an  accurately  tuned, tested, 
and  stamped  tuning-fork,  having  exactly 
256  vibrations  in  a second, that  there  should 
be  no  possible  error  committed  in  over- 
hauling this  celebrated  experiment  and 
the  argument  deduced  from  it, as  published 
to  the  world  by  Professor  Tyndall. 

Thus  equipped,  I proceeded  to  test  a 
glass  jar,  straight  from  bottom  to  top,  by 
pouring  in  water  while  the  fork  was  sound- 
ing over  it,  as  was  done  by  Professor  Tyn- 
dall, till  the  greatest  resonant  depth  was 
obtained.  I now  declare,  after  testing  a 
number  of  different  jars  of  various  diam- 
eters, from  four  to  two  inches  (which,  by 
the  way,  give  a uniform  result),  that  the 
length  of  column  or  greatest  resonant 
depth  for  such  a fork,  at  about  60  degrees 
Fahrenheit,  is  invariably  nf  inches  in- 
stead of  13,  as  stated  by  this  “highest  living 
authority,”  thus  making  the  wave-length 
47  inches  instead  of  5 2,  as  it  should  be  ac- 
cording to  the  wave-theory!  With  47 
inches  as  the  wave-length,  multiplied  by 
the  number  of  vibrations  (256),  we  would 
make  the  velocity  of  sound  but  1002  feet 
in  a second,  at  60  degrees  Fahrenheit,  in- 
stead of  the  observed  and  well-known  ve- 
locity of  n 20  feet  a second!  Thus  the 


wave-theory  is  overthrown  by  the  very  ar- 
gument adduced  to  sustain  it,  while  the 
reader  undoubtedly  asks  how  could  it  be 
possible  for  Professor  Tyndall  to  perpe- 
trate such  a glaring  mistake, with  the  glass 
jar  before  him,  and  with  a proper  tuning- 
fork  and  a correct  “two-foot  rule”  in  his 
hand ! The  error,  as  we  see,  is  a fatal  one, 
since  it  makes  a positive  difference  of  118 
feet  a second,  as  any  tyro  in  mathematics 
can  instantly  determine,  between  the  ob- 
served velocity  of  sound  and  what  it  is 
forced  to  be  according  to  the  formula  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  in  trying  to  sustain  an 
untenable  and  foundationless  theory. 

But  I will  now  try  to  relieve  the  mind 
of  the  reader,  and  tell  him  in  unmistakable 
words  how  this  mistake  occurred  in  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall’s  calculation;  and  also,  I 
may  add,  in  the  calculation  of  Professor 
Helmholtz,  who  agrees  with  Professor  Tyn- 
dall fully  that  the  greatest  resonant  depth 
of  a jar  is  one  quarter  of  the  wave-length  of 
the  determinate  tone  thus  augmented ; so  that 
these  two  great  physicists  fall,  as  usual, 
side  by  side,  whenever  one  is  tripped. 

Those  having  access  to  a copy  of  the 
Lectures  on  Sound  will  observe  that  the 
engraving  represents  a jar  having  an  ex- 
panded  or  bell-shaped  mouth!  This  single 
fact  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  mystery 
and  solves  the  whole  problem,  giving  the 
true  reason  for  ProfessorTyndall’s  trouble 
in  a nutshell.  In  order  to  demonstrate  the 
correctness  of  this  solution  of  the  difficulty, 
I had  three  jars  made  specially  for  this 
experiment,  all  of  the  same  diameter  and 
height, — one  straight  from  bottom  to  top, 
one  with  an  expanding  mouth,  the  expan- 
sion being  about  one  half  the  diameter  of 
the  jar  and  extending  down  a couple  of 
inches,  and  the  third  with  the  mouth  con- 
tracted or  drawn  in  about  as  much  and 
about  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  other 
was  expanded. 


Ciiap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


279 


By  means  of  a series  of  careful  tests  with 
the  same  fork  — 256  vibrations  to  the  sec- 
ond— I found  that  while  the  straight  jar 
gave  invariably  a resonant  depth  of  nf 
inches,  the  one  with  the  bell-shaped  mouth 
gave  a depth  of  12^  inches,  while  the  one 
with  a contracted  mouth  gave  a depth  of 
but  ii^  inches.  The  conclusion  was  thus 
scientifically  reached  that  with  the  mouth 
of  the  jar  sufficiently  expanded,  and  carry- 
ing the  expansioh  a sufficient  distance 
down,  a resonant  depth  of  exactly  13  inches 
might  be  finally  attained,  and  in  this  way 
the  experiment  could  be  made  to  precisely 
harmonize  with  the  necessities  of  the  wave- 
theory,  making  52  inches  the  wave-length 
instead  of 47, — as  results, and  must  always 
result,  from  using  an  honest  jar! 

It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  this  lecturer, 
in  the  presence  of  an  intelligent  audience 
of  scientific  men,  would  have  stated  that 
the  resonant  depth  of  this  jar  was  thirteen 
inches,  by  actual  measurement  with  a “two- 
foot  rule,”  when  it  was  but  eleven  inches 
ami  three  quarters!  And  it  would  not  be 
fair  to  suppose  that  he  had  a bogus  “two- 
foot  rule,”  or  that  he  was  capable  of  play- 
ing any  such  “tricks  that  are  vain”  as  run- 
ning the  rule  up  his  sleeve  while  making 
the  measurement!  We  are  bound,  there- 
fore, to  admit  that  his  measurement  was 
honest,  and  that  the  jar  showed  an  actual 
resonant  depth  of  13  inches;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  we  are  driven  to  assume  that 
the  mouth  of  the  jar  flared , as  his  engrav- 
ing indicates,  just  enough  to  make  up  this 
deficit  of  1 5 inches,  thus  to  sustain  the 
wave-theory ! 

Now,  I do  not  intend  to  insinuate  that 
there  was  any  conspiracy  between  the 
Professor  and  his  glass  jar  by  which  its 
mouth  was  to  flare  just  enough  and  not  a 
whit  too  much  to  make  up  these  thirteen 
inches  of  resonant  depth!  As  a suppo- 
sition so  flagrantly  unkind  is  out  of  the 


question,  it  becomes  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable coincidences  known  to  science 
that  such  a long  glass  vessel  should  be 
blown  with  a mouth  flaring  just  enough  to 
answer  the  purposes  of  this  theory,  and 
that  it  should  have  occurred  fortuitously, 
or  without  pre-calculation,  design,  or  in- 
tention, on  the  part  of  anybody!  A man 
who  could  believe  this  would  require  but 
little  stretch  of  his  credulity  to  believe, 
with  Mr.  Darwin,  that  man,  with  all  his 
complicated  powers,  might  have  been  ac- 
cidentally developed  by  a series  of  fortu- 
nate spontaneous  variations  to  what  he 
now  is,  from  a horned  toad  or  a soft-shell 
clam. 

The  serious  part  of  the  whole  matter, 
however,  viewed  from  a scientific  stand- 
point, seems  to  be  this:  Even  supposing 
that  particular  jar,  having  just  such  a flar- 
ing mouth, should  have  fallen  into  the  lec- 
turer’s hands  accidentally  on  that  partic- 
ular occasion, which  so  luckily  hit  the  nail 
on  the  head  and  demonstrated  the  truth 
of  the  wave-theory,  is  it  conceivable  that 
this  great  sound-expert  and  experimenter, 
who  had  devoted  much  of  his  life  to  the 
investigations  of  sonorous  phenomena,  in- 
cluding this  same  beautiful  problem  of 
resonance,  never  happened  at  any  other 
time  to  try  this  experiment  with  a straight 
jar,  or,  in  fact,  with  any  jar  not  flared  ex- 
actly to  that  extent?  If  he  ever  held  a 
tuning-fork  of  any  determinate  pitch  over 
a straight  jar,  and  then  brought  into  requi- 
sition his  “two-foot  rule,”  he  certainly  must 
have  seen  that  the  resonant  depth  thus  result- 
ing was  considerably  less  than  the  one  quarter 
of  a wave-length  of  the  particular  fork  em- 
ployed! 

To  meet  the  difficulty,  and  rescue  this 
eminent  lecturer  from  the  fatal  effects  of 
his  own  argument, we  are  forced  to  assume 
that  in  all  his  experience  he  never  used 
but  the  one  jar,  having  that  particular 


28o 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


flare  to  its  mouth,  and  never  saw  such  an 
experiment  tried  by  any  one  else  as  hold- 
ing a tuning-fork  of  a determinate  pitch 
over  a straight  jar  from  bottom  to  top,  or 
over  any  other  jar  having  a bell-shaped 
mouth  differing  in  the  slightest  degree 
from  the  one  which  so  fortunately  fell  into 
his  hands  for  that  special  occasion  ! 

Whatever  explanation  maybe  attempted 
of  these  singular  and  uncomfortable  facts, 
and  however  this  lecturer  may  essay  to 
rescue  his  experiment  from  the  suspicion 
in  the  mind  of  the  reader  of  a conspiracy 
between  somebody  and  that  particular  glass 
jar,  one  thing  is  settled  beyond  all  possible 
doubt  by  the  unfortunate  dilemma  in 
which  this  eminent  physicist  has  involved 
himself,  which  is  this  : the  wave-theory  of 
sound  has  fairly  and  utterly  broken  down, 
judged  alone  by  the  strongest  argument 
ever  employed  to  sustain  it,  since  the 
theory’s  own  explanation  of  the  supposed 
wave-length  contradicts  the  observed  ve- 
locity of  sound,  when  an  honest  jar  is  used, 
by  just  118  feet  a second!  Oh,  for  some 
modern  Laplace  to  help  Professor  Tyndall 
out  of  his  difficulty  by  a new  formula  of 
heat  and  cold — condensation  and  rarefac- 
tion— to  account  for  this  discrepancy  of 
118  feet  a second,  as  the  original  Laplace 
so  triumphantly  succeeded  in  not  doing  it 
with  the  deficit  of  174  feet  a second  dis- 
covered by  Sir  Isaac  Newton! 

The  next  illustrated  argument  in  this 
course  of  lectures  on  sound,  to  which  I 
would  invite  the  attention  of  the  reader, 
is  perhaps  the  most  astonishing  for  pure 
baselessness  ever  presented  in  favor  of  a 
scientific  theory, being  particularly  remark- 
able for  two  things:  the  first,  that  it  is  ad- 
vanced as  a specially  conclusive  evidence 
in  favor  of  atmospheric  wave-motion  (which 
it  certainly  would  be  if  true);  while  in  the 
second  place,  there  is  not  the  semblance 
of  scientific  truth  in  even  the  assumed 


facts  on  which  the  whole  argument  is 
based.  The  correctness  of  this  apparently 
exaggerated  assertion  will  be  abundantly 
evident  to  the  reader  as  the  analysis  of 
the  position  advances. 

I have  pondered  frequently  over  the 
argument  to  which  I now  refer,  and  every 
time  with  undiminished  amazement  to 
think  that  a careful  physicist  and  compe- 
tent investigator  of  scientific  phenomena 
should  have  been  so  presumptuous  as  to 
imagine  it  possible  for  a person,  claiming 
to  reason  at  all,  to  accept  the  pretended 
facts  so  deliberately  assumed  and  specific- 
ally paraded.  At  times  I confess  to  having 
been  inclined  to  half  suspect  my  own  want 
of  perspicacity  in  not  catching  the  true 
meaning  of  the  text,  it  seeming  so  entirely 
inconceivable  that  a person,  pretending  to 
even  ordinary  scientific  knowledge,  should 
have  assumed  as  facts,  simply  because  a 
theory  happened  to  require  it, what  a very 
stupid  schoolboy  a dozen  years  old  could 
readily  have  seen  to  be  without  a shadow 
of  foundation  ; — facts  as  preposterously 
and  transparently  out  of  the  question  as 
if  he  had  stated  to  his  audience  that  the 
swaying  shadow  of  a tree  had  weight  and 
momentum  sufficient  to  knock  a man  down 
should  he  come  in  contact  with  it!  But  after 
discussing  the  matter  and  comparing  views 
with  others, — even  believers  in  Professor 
Tyndall’s  theory  of  wave-motion, — and 
finding  that  the  most  critical  scientific 
thinkers  were  obliged  to  place  the  same 
construction  on  his  language  that  I had 
done,  there  was  nothing  left  but  to  accept 
his  literal  statement  of  assumed  scientific 
facts,  and  then  meet  his  extraordinary  ar- 
gument. With  these  preliminary  remarks, 
I will  now, as  usual, proceed  to  briefly  state 
the  argument  before  giving  the  exact  words 
of  the  lecturer,  that  the  reader  may  know 
what  specific  point  to  expect. 

As  is  well  known  to  every  scientific  stu- 


ClIAl’.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


281 


dent,  and  as  previously  shown  by  quota- 
tions, the  wave-theory  assumes  that  two 
systems  of  sound-waves,  from  two  unison 
instruments,  traveling  through  the  same 
air  together,  may  so  travel  as  to  assist  each 
other  or  augment  each  other’s  sound;  that 
is,  when  they  travel  in  such  a manner  that 
the  condensations  of  one  system  of  waves 
coincide  with  the  condensations  of  the  other 
system,  and  the  rarefactions  of  the  one 
with  the  rarefactions  of  the  other,  the  same 
as  two  systems  of  water-waves  will  make 
higher  billows  when  they  travel  together 
in  such  manner  that  the  crests  of  one  sys- 
tem coincide  with  the  crests  of  the  other, 
and  the  furrows  of  the  one  with  tire  fur- 
rows of  the  other. 

It  is  also  well  known  that  if  two  equal 
systems  of  water-waves  travel  together  in 
such  manner  that  the  crests  of  one  system 
coincide  with  or  fall  into  the  f urrows  of 
the  other  system,  they  will  mutually  de- 
stroy or  neutralize  each  other,  producing 
a level,  or  nearly  so.  This  is  called  inter- 
ference. But  as  atmospheric  sound-waves 
are  claimed  to  be  “essentially  identical” 
with  and  “precisely  similar”  to  water- 
waves,  hence  it  seemed  unavoidable,  as 
a vital  feature  of  the  wave-theory,  that 
physicists  should  teach,  just  as  they  do, 
that  if  two  unison  systems  of- sound-waves 
should  happen  to  travel  in  such  relation 
that  the  condensations  of  one  system  should 
coalesce  with  or  fall  into  the  rarefactions 
of  the  other  system,  they  must  necessarily 
neutralize  each  other  or  produce  absolute 
silence. 

As  I saw  that  this  was  the  evident  and 
unavoidable  reasoning  of  physicists,  I un- 
dertook, when  first  investigating  the  wave- 
theory,  to  expose  its  fallacy  by  showing 
that  if  it  were  so,  then  two  unison  pipes, 
forks,  or  reeds,  sounded  half  a wave-length 
apart, could  not  be  heard  at  all  by  a listener 
Stationed  in  the  line  of  the  instruments, 


because  in  that  direction  the  two  systems 
of  waves  would  be  compelled  to  travel  in 
complete  interference , the  crests  or  conden- 
sations of  one  system  matching  into  the 
furrows  or  rarefactions  of  the  other,  thus 
producing  a level , or  neutralizing  each 
other’s  effect;  whereas,  if  the  instruments 
were  sounded  a whole  wave-length  apart , 
then  their  united  sound  would  necessarily 
be  much  louder  in  the  line  of  the  instru- 
ments than  either  would  be  alone, because 
the  two  systems  of  air-waves  would  re- 
enforce each  other  by  coincidence, — their 
condensations  would  run  together  as  well 
as  their  rarefactions , and  thus  augment 
each  other’s  effect  on  the  air  the  same  as 
shown  in  water-waves. 

Of  course  I supposed  that  I was  ad- 
vancing a new  argument  against  the  theory, 
and  one  so  self-evidently  fatal  to  it,  being 
the  unavoidable  consequence  or  natural 
outgrowth  of  this  “law  ” of  interference  that 
the  moment  physicists  would  see  it  they 
would  necessarily  be  compelled  to  abandon 
the  wave-hypothesis  as  a self-stultifying 
absurdity,  since  such  an  idea  as  two  unison 
instruments  not  being  heard  when  sounded 
in  line,  whatever  distance  apart,  whether  a 
half  or  a whole  wave-length,  was  so  tran- 
scendency absurd  and  contrary  to  all  ob- ' 
servation  and  reason  that  I did  not  con- 
sider it  necessary  to  more  than  state  the 
fact  in  order  to  annihilate  the  assumption 
of  atmospheric  sound-waves!  I never 
dreamt  of  such  a thing  as  that  physicists 
had  thought  of  the  same  argument,  much 
less  that  they  had  appropriated  and  adopt- 
ed it  as  a part  of  their  system.  The  reader 
can  guess  my  astonishment  to  find,  in  care- 
fully reading  Professor  Tyndall’s  Lectures 
on  Sound , that  my  own  crushing  argu- 
ment against  the  wave-theory  had  been 
clearly  anticipated  and  coolly  presented 
to  his  audience  as  an  illustration  of  this 
very  law  of  interference , and  the  manner 


282 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


in  which  sound  can  be  so  added  to  sound 
as  to  produce  silence! 

Thus,  we  come  at  last  to  the  argument 
to  which  my  preliminary  remarks  had  ref- 
erence. In  elucidating  this  law  of  “inter- 
ference” in  his  book,  Professor  Tyndall 
has  presented  engravings  representing  two 
unison  tuning-forks  placed  first  a wave- 
length and  then  half  a wave-length  apart. 
Suppose  each  of  the  two  forks  to  have 
exactly  256  vibrations  in  a second,  and  a 
consequent  wave-length  of  52  inches,  he 
shows  by  the  most  careful  explanation  that 
if  the  two  forks  should  be  placed  26  inches 
apart  (half  a wave-length),  and  be  then 
made  to  vibrate  ever  so  vigorously,  no 
sound  would  be  heard  in  the  line  of  the 
two  instruments, which  is  illustrated  in  the 
engraving  by  a smooth  and  uniform  shad- 
ing passing  off  from  the  forks,  thus  repre- 
senting the  quiescent  condition  of  the  air. 
He  also  shows  by  the  other  figure  that  if 
the  two  forks  are  placed  52  inches  (a  whole 
wave-length)  apart,  the  sound  will  be  dis- 
tinctly heard  in  line,  the  waves  of  which 
he  represents  by  alternate  dark  and  light 
shadings  passing  off  from  the  forks  in  the 
same  manner,  thus  teaching  that  any  two 
unison  musical  instruments,  however  in- 
tense their  tone  may  be,  if  thus  sounded 
half  a wave-length  apart,  would  neutralize 
each  other,  and  not  be  heard  at  all  in  the 
line  of  such  sounding  bodies. 

With  this  explanation  before  the  reader, 
I will  now  quote  Professor  Tyndall’s  own 
words,  to  show  that  it  is  not  a misconcep- 
tion of  his  meaning: — 

“Now  let  us  ask  what  must  be  the  distance  be- 
tween the  prongs  A and  B [one  prong  of  each  of 
the  two  forks]  when  the  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions of  both,  indicated  respectively  by  the  dark 
and  light  shading,  coincide?  A little  reflection  will 
make  it  clear  that  if  the  distance  from  B to  A be 
equal  to  the  length  of  a whole  sonorous  wave  [52 
inches]  coincidence  bettveen  the  two  systems  of  waves 
must  follow.  The  same  would  evidently  occur 


where  the  distance  between  A and  B is  two  wave- 
lengths, three  wave-lengths,  four  wave-lengths, — 
in  short,  any  number  of  whole  wave-lengths.  In 
all  such  cases  we  should  have  coincidence  of  the 
two  systems  of  waves,  and  consequently  a reinforce- 
ment of  the  sound  of  one  fork  by  that  of  the  other. 

. . . But  if  the  prong  B be  only  half  the  length  of  a 
wave  behind  A [26  inches]  what  must  occur?  Man- 
ifestly the  rarefactions  of  one  of  the  systems  of 
waves,  will  then  coincide  with  the  condensations  of 
the  other  system,  and  we  shall  have  interference ; 
the  air  to  the  right  of  A being  reduced  to  quies- 
cence.”— Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  259. 

Before  commenting  on  the  above  cita- 
tion, which  distinctly  teaches  what  I have 
asserted,  I wish  to  guard  against  the  re- 
motest suspicion  of  misconceiving  the  Pro- 
fessor’s meaning  of  “condensation,”  “rare- 
faction,” “coincidence,”  “interference,” 
&c.  It  is  of  the  highest  importance,  also, 
that  the  reader  shall  know  from  the  lec- 
turer’s own  words  that  I have  not  misap- 
prehended him  in  the  slightest  degree. 
To  this  end  I now  quote  a passage  which 
leaves  no  possible  doubt.  He  says: — 

“In  the  case  of  water,  when  the  crests  of  one 
system  of  waves  coincide  with  the  crests  of  a?iother 
system,  higher  waves  will  be  the  result  of  the  co- 
alescence of  the  two  systems.  But  when  the  crests 
of  one  system  coincide  with  the  sinuses  or  furrows 
of  the  other  system,  the  two  systems  in  whole  or  in 
part  destroy  each  other.  [Of  course,  no  one  doubts 
the  truth  of  this  statement  as  applied  to  water- 
waves,  because  there  we  have  actual  wave-motion.] 
This  imttual  destruction  of  two  systems  of  waves  is 
called  interference.  The  same  remarks  apply  to 
sonorous  waves.  If  in  two  systems  of  sonorous  waves 
condensation  coincides  with  condensation  and  rare- 
faction with  rarefaction,  the  sound  produced  by 
such  coincidence  is  louder  than  that  produced  by 
either  system  taken  singly.  But  if  the  condensa- 
tions of  the  one  system  coincide  with  the  rarefactions 
of  the  other,  a destruction  total  or  partial  of  both 
systems  is  the  consequence.  ...  If  the  two  sounds 
be  of  the  same  intensity  their  coincidence  produces 
a sound  of  four  times  the  intensity  of  either;  while 
their  interference  produces  absolute  silence.” — Lec- 
tures on  Sound,  pp.  284,  285. 

This  language  can  not  be  misunder- 
stood. Two  equally  intense  systems  of 
sound-waves  from  two  unison  instruments, 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


283 


placed  half  a wave-length  apart  so  that 
their  waves  “interfere,”  must  of  necessity 
destroy  or  neutralize  each  other,  and  thus 
produce  “ absolute  silence"  either  way  in  the 
line  of  such  instruments , if  there  is  any 
truth  in  this  pretended  law  of  “ inter- 
ference, 

It  must,  therefore,  be  entirely  plain  to 
the  reader,  if  the  wave-theory  be  true,  and 
if  any  such  phenomena  as  atmospheric 
sound-waves  do  actually  occur  in  sonorous 
propagation,  having  condensations  and  rare- 
factions, amplitude  and  wave-length  in  feet 
and  inches,  that  this  law  of  “ interference" 
must  also  inevitably  follow,  just  as  physi- 
cists have  represented  it,  for  such  is  indis- 
putably the  law  which  prevails  in  water- 
waves,  where  we  know  that  a veritable 
amplitude  and  wave-length  exist.  Hence, 
to  have  ignored  this  law  of  “ interference ” 
in  sound  would  have  been  to  ignore  sound- 
waves altogether;  and  therefore,  as  was 
naturally  to  be  expected,  Professor  Tyndall 
teaches  undisguised  u interference,"  with  its 
resultant  “neutralization”  or  “ absolute  si- 
lence,” in  the  manner  here  quoted. 

But  just  as  true  as  “interference”  is  a 
necessary  law  growing  out  of  wave-motion, 
whether  in  air  or  in  water,  just  that  certain 
is  it  that  the  whole  wave-theory  falls  to  the 
ground  whenever  this  law  of  sonorous  “in- 
terference” is  shown  to  be  without  foun- 
dation in  fact.  I now  undertake  to  assert 
that  such  a law,  in  relation  to  sound- 
propagation,  is  purely  visionary  and  mon- 
strously chimerical,  having  no  existence  in 
Nature,  and  not  even  the  appearance  of  a 
properly  understood  fact  to  warrant  it. 
Strange  as  this  may  sound  to  physicists, 
they  will  be  more  than  satisfied  of  its  cor- 
rectness before  this  chapter  is  finished. 

As  one  evidence  that  the  law  is  without 
foundation  in  science  or  in  fact,  we  need 
no  better  proof  than  the  test  here  distinctly 
prescribed  by  this  lecturer  himself,  namely, 


the  placing  of  two  unison  instruments  half 
a wave-length  apart,  and  then  sounding 
them  with  listeners  stationed  in  line  either 
way  to  determine  by  actual  observation 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  principle  enun- 
ciated. Professor  Tyndall  distinctly  tells 
11s  that  two  such  instruments  would  not  be 
heard  in  line,  however  loudly  they  might 
sound  or  however  distinctly  one  alone 
could  be  heard  if  the  other  was  silenced. 
It  would  really  seem  that  an  intelligent 
reader  need  scarcely  be  informed  that 
there  is  not  one  scintilla  of  scientific  truth 
in  this  whole  statement;  and  how  a phys- 
icist, having  any  regard  for  accuracy  or  the 
just  respect  of  the  scientific  world,  could 
have  published  such  a fabrication  as  part 
of  a scientific  lecture,  to  meet  the  necessi- 
ties of  any  theory,  however  firmly  estab- 
lished, is  more  than  I can  imagine.  That 
the  wave-theory  requires  such  a “law”  of 
interference  as  well  as  such  practical  fruits 
in  the  form  of  “neutralization”  and  “ab- 
solute silence”  there  can  be  no  question. 
In  fact,  its  very  life  depends  upon  the 
truth  of  Professor  Tyndall’s  statement,  or 
otherwise,  as  just  shown,  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  sound-waves  at  all,  and  the 
whole  wave-theory  consequently  breaks 
down.  Believing,  as  did  this  eminent 
scientist,  that  the  wave-theory  could  not 
be  otherwise  than  true,  and  knowing  that 
if  true,  the  law  of  “interference”  and  its 
effect  of  “absolute  silence”  must  follow, 
as  a matter  of  course,  with  two  unison  in- 
struments sounding  half  a wave-length 
apart,  hence  he  seemingly  shut  his  eyes 
to  the  necessity  of  testing  the  matter,  and 
ran  headlong  into  this  ridiculous  position, 
which  a schoolboy  with  two  penny  whistles 
of  the  same  pitch  and  a couple  of  babies 
for  assistants,  could  instantly  have  shown 
to  be  without  a particle  of  foundation  in 
truth ! 

As  a final  and  unanswerable  experiment 


284 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


for  the  purpose  of  testing  this  supposed 
law  of  “ interference,”  on  which,  of  course, 
the  existence  of  the  wave-theory  depends, 
the  reader  has  only  to  figure  before  his 
mind’s  eye  two  immense  organ-pipes  of 
equal  capacity  which  sound  the  low  E of 
the  double  bass,  having  each  40  vibrations 
to  the  second,  and  a consequent  wave- 
length in  air  of  exactly  28  feet.  Then 
figure  these  two  pipes  placed  precisely  14 
feet  apart  in  an  open  field,  free  from  any 
reflecting  surfaces, each  pipe  supplied  with 
wind  from  a powerful  bellows,  and  the 
witnesses  stationed  on  either  side  in  line 
with  the  pipes.  It  is  manifestly  evident 
when  these  pipes  are  sounded  in  this  po- 
sition that  their  two  systems  of  unison 
waves  (if  they  produce  waves  at  all,  or  if 
the  wave-theory  has  any  foundation,)  will 
travel  in  the  direction  of  this  line  in  abso- 
lute “interference”;  that  is  to  say,  the 
condensations  of  the  waves  from  one  pipe 
will  exactly  coincide  with,  or  fall  into,  the 
rarefactions  of  the  waves  from  the  other, 
and  hence  along  that  line  the  witnesses 
would  hear  no  tone  if  this  law  of  “inter- 
ference” has  any  existence  in  sound,  while 
another  jury  of  witnesses  placed  to  the 
right  and  left,  equidistant  from  the  two 
pipes, would  hear  their  united  sounds  with 
four  times  the  intensity  of  cither  pipe  sounded 
singly  ! 

I now  appeal  to  the  reader  to  decide  if 
there  can,  by  any  possibility,  be  a grain  of 
philosophical  truth  in  this  supposed  result 
of  “interference,”  so  explicitly  taught  by 
Professors  Tyndall,  Helmholtz,  and  all 
writers  on  sound.  If  not,  then,  as  a neces- 
sary consequence,  the  wave-theory  breaks 
down,  having  no  foundation  on  which  to 
rest.  I must  say  here  that  with  one  mo- 
ment’s thought  Professor  Tyndall  himself 
could  not  help  but  admit  that  the  two 
organ-pipes  named  would  be  heard  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  line  when  14  feet  apart 


as  when  separated  28  feet, or  rather  a trifle 
louder,  since  the  farthest  pipe  would  be 
nearer  the  listener  when  separated  from 
him  by  only  half  a wave-length.  To  say 
that  this  eminent  savant  would  deny  that 
the  pipes  could  be  heard  in  line  when  14 
feet  apart,  or  that  he  would  still  insist  on 
his  law  of  “interference”  and  “silence” 
after  his  attention  was  directly  called  to 
the  question,  is  to  assert  what  I do  not 
and  can  not  believe  till  such  time  as  the 
Professor  shall  flatly  compel  me  to  do  so. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  though  we  may 
hear  the  sounds  of  these  pipes  thus  sta- 
tioned half  a wave-length  apart,  it  is  not 
their  fundamental  tones  we  hear,  but  their 
principal  over-tones,  and  that  this  law  of 
“interference”  only  supposes  the  neutral- 
ization of  the  primary  sounds  of  the  two 
instruments,  whose  waves  are  necessarily 
of  the  same  length  ! This  objection,  though 
presented  to  me  by  a sound-expert  of  con- 
siderable reputation,  is  wholly  foundation- 
less, and  can  be  set  aside  by  a single  fact, 
since  any  person,  having  two  unison  forks, 
and  causing  them  to  be  sounded  over  two 
resonant  jars  of  proper  depth  placed  half 
a wave-length  apart,  can  hear  their  tones 
exactly  the  same  in  line  as  at  right  angles, 
or  when  a whole  wave-length  apart;  while 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Professor 
Helmholtz,  the  very  highest  authority  on 
the  subject,  such  sounds  are  destitute  of  ac- 
companying  over-tones  ! 

The  truth  is,  there  is  no  force  whatever 
in  the  objection.  Every  one  knows  a fun- 
damental tone  from  its  octave , which  is  the 
first  or  principal  over-tone ; and  by  sound- 
ing any  two  unison  pipes  half  a wave-length 
apart  and  listening  in  line, one  can  instant- 
ly tell  by  the  evidence  of  his  ears  alone* 
that  the  fundamental  tone  does  not  cease 
at  all,  neither  is  weakened,  but  is  rather 
heard  exactly  the  same  in  quality  and 
quantity,  according  to  distance,  as  when 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


285 


the  pipes  are  a full  wave-length  apart,  no 
difference  whatever  occurring  in  this  re- 
spect; and  a man  who  is  not  capable  of 
comprehending  the  truth  and  force  of  this 
self-evident  declaration  never  ought  to  let 
the  sacred  word  “science”  escape  his  lips. 

But  I do  not  need  to  depend  upon  ar- 
gument, however  conclusive,  to  show  that 
no  such  thing  as  this  so-called  “interfer- 
ence" can  take  plae^  between  the  sounds 
of  two  unison  instruments  stationed, as  de- 
scribed by  Professor  Tyndall,  half  a wave- 
length apart.  As  has  so  often  been  done 
during  this  discussion,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  quote  another  passage  from  the  same 
authority  in  order  to  show  the  most  start- 
ling and  point-blank  contradiction  of  the 
whole  position  here  assumed  in  regard  to 
“interference.”  I have  frequently  sug- 
gested that  a radically  false  theory  can 
not  avoid  self-contradiction,  in  the  very 
nature  of  things,  when  it  comes  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  details,  and  here  we  have  another 
illustration  of  it.  I will  now  array  Profes- 
sor Tyndall  against  himself,  producing  a 
practical  case  of  “interference”  and  “neu- 
tralization,” and  then  let  him  or  his  friends 
settle  it  as  best  they  can : — 

“ I have  already  had  occasion  to  state  to  you  that 
when  several  sounds  traverse  the  same  air  each  par- 
ticular sound  passes  through  the  air  as  if  it  alone 
•were  present .” — Lectures  on  Sound , p.  281. 

How,  then,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is 
called  science,  can  two  sounds  “traverse 
the  same  air”  in  such  a manner  as  to  neu- 
tralize each  other  and  produce  “absolute 
silence” by  the  two  systems  of  sound-waves 
interfering , when  “ each  particular  sound 
passes  through  the  air  as  if  it  alone  were 
present ”? 

We  thus  have  the  most  overwhelming 
evidence  from  Professor  Tyndall  himself 
that  all  this  reasoning  about  the  possibility 
of  the  sound-waves  of  two  unison  forks 
neutralizing  each  other  by  so-called  inter- 


ference is  a pure  fabrication,  without  the 
plausibility  of  ordinary  fiction;  and  hence 
that  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation 
either  for  this  law  of  “interference”  or  for 
the  hypothetic  sound-waves  from  which  it 
is  deduced,  since  it  is  evident  if  air-waves 
exist  at  all,  two  sounds  would  be  just  as 
apt  to  clash  and  neutralize  each  other  as 
to  be  heard,  making  the  last  quotation 
clearly  false. 

The  general  conclusion,  therefore,  to 
which  I am  logically  forced,  is,  that  this 
eminent  authority  never  tried  this  experi- 
ment at  all,  either  publicly  or  privately, 
of  sounding  two  unison  instruments  half 
a wave-length  apart,  and  thus  producing 
neutralization  by  this  so-called  law  of  “in- 
terference,” but  rather  that  he  gives  the 
illustration  in  his  book,  and  explains  this 
law  on  general  principles,  based  on  the 
blind  assumption  that  it  must  be  so,  be- 
cause the  wave-theory  must  be  true  and 
necessarily  requires  it,  when  it  would  not 
have  taken  him  half  an  hour  to  make  a 
careful  experimental  test  with  two  unison 
forks  or  other  instruments,  which  would 
have  instantly  dissipated  the  delusion, 
and  opened  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  this 
pretended  law  of  “interference”  in  these 
so-called  sound-waves  is  a pure  and  simple 
chimera,  contradicted  by  reason  as  well  as 
by  the  observation  of  all  mankind. 

Thus  again,  as  so  frequently  witnessed 
during  this  discussion, one  of  the  strongest 
arguments  in  favor  of  wave-motion  in 
sound-propagation  turns  out,  when  un- 
locked by  the  combination  key  of  truth 
and  common  sense,  to  be  a magazine 
which  explodes  and  annihilates  the  theory; 
for,  as  we  all  know  that  two  unison  instru- 
ments can  positively  be  heard  the  same  in 
any  direction  when  sounded  half  a wave- 
length apart  as  when  separated  a whole 
wave-length  or  any  other  distance,  as  an 
illiterate  rustic  might  easily  ascertain,  it 


286 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


follows  that  there  is  no  such  a thing  as 
“interference”  in  sound-waves;  and  if  no 
interference,  then  no  waves  to  interfere, 
since  water-waves,  as  every  one  knows, 
will  interfere  under  just  such  conditions 
as  this  physicist  lays  down,  and  mutually 
destroy  or  neutralize  each  other, thus  dem- 
onstrating the  wave-theory  to  be  a fallacy 
of  science  by  the  very  argument  advanced 
to  maintain  it ! 

“But  do  you  deny  the  interference  of 
sound  under  any  circumstances,  or  such  a 
thing  as  a phase  of  opposition ?”  I am  asked 
by  the  intelligent  scientific  reader.  I an- 
swer, emphatically,  “Yes!”  in  any  sense 
which  could  be  analogous  to  the  interfer- 
ence which  takes  place  in  wave-motion. 
A certain  kind  of  interference  or  oppo- 
sition resulting  from  a forced  departure 
from  unison  in  two  instruments  sounding 
in  close  proximity,  as  observed  in  so-called 
“beats,”  and  caused  by  the  same  affinity 
which  produces  sympathetic  vibration,  is 
no  doubt  possible,  and  which  I will  try  to 
elucidate  before  the  close  of  this  chapter. 
But  prior  to  this,  I undertake  to  meet  and 
explain  the  principal  class  of  facts  relied 
on  by  physicists  as  favoring  the  common 
view  of  interference,  as  just  exemplified 
in  the  argument  about  twro  unison  forks, 
or  as  caused  by  supposed  waves  with  con- 
densations and  rarefactions. 

One  of  the  strongest  arguments  favoring 
such  a law  is  drawn  from  the  action  of  the 
double  siren,  which,  it  is  claimed,  demon- 
strates beyond  question  that  two  systems 
of  sound-waves  from  two  unison  sirens, 
operated  together  in  such  a manner  as  to 
cause  alternation  of  sounds  in  what  is  sup- 
posed to  be  half  wave-lengths,  neutralize 
each  other,  and  thus  produce  “absolute 
silence”;  while  it  is  also  claimed  that  the 
same  effect  is  observable  in  the  action  of 
light,  under  certain  optical  conditions  in 
which  two  rays,  by  interfering,  will  neu- 


tralize each  other  and  cause  absolute 
darkness!  It  was  this  phenomenon,  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  tells  us,  which  first  led  to 
the  Undulatory  Theory  of  Light.  His 
words  are : — 

“ We  have  here  a phenomenon,  which , above  all 
others , characterizes  wave-motion.  It  was  this  phe- 
nomenon, as  manifested  in  optics,  that  led  to  the 
undulatory  theory  of  light,  the  most  cogent  proof  of 
that  theory  being  based  upon  the  fact  that  by  adding 
light  to  light  we  may  produce  darkness,  just  as  we 
can  produce  silence  by  adding  sound  to  sound." — 
Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  259. 

I propose  to  show,  in  a few  moments, 
that  this  whole  matter,  as  regards  the 
double  siren,  is  a clear  misapprehension  on 
the  part  of  these  writers,  and  that  no  such 
effects  as  they  describe  can  possibly  occur 
with  this  or  with  any  other  unison  instru- 
ments,— that  no  such  thing  as  “silence”  is 
or  can  be  caused  by  any  possible  combi- 
nation of  the  two  rotating  disks  of  this  in- 
strument or  the  tones  they  produce,  and 
consequently  that  both  Professors  Tyndall 
and  Helmholtz  have  entirely  mistaken  the 
action  of  the  double  siren, — and  that  in  at- 
tempting to  explain  it  to  favor  this  law'  of 
“interference,”  they  have  perpetrated  one 
of  the  most  glaring  and  laughable  blunders 
recorded  in  the  annals  of  science. 

This  language,  I admit,  must  seem  to  a 
physicist  almost  if  not  quite  preposterous, 
particularly  with  reference  to  Professor 
Helmholtz,  who  invented  the  very  form 
of  siren  on  which  the  experiments  about 
to  be  examined  were  made.  Is  it  possible, 
the  reader  may  pertinently  ask,  that  this 
eminent  physicist  and  musician  does  not 
comprehend  the  action  or  acoustical  effects 
of  his  own  instrument?  I answer  that  it 
is  possible,  and  now  undertake  to  clearly 
demonstrate  it;  while  such  a fact  ought 
to  be  no  more  surprising,  if  proved,  than 
the  already  demonstrated  fact  that  the 
snmo  acoustician  utterly  misapprehended 
the  action  of  the  violin  bow  in  relation  to 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


287 


that  of  the  string,  supposing  the  latter  to 
normally  move  ten  times  swifter  than  the 
former,  though  he  was,  at  the  time  he  per- 
petrated this  fiasco,  a practical  violinist, 
as  reviewed  at  pages  95,  96,  and  onward. 
The  question  of  fact,  therefore,  whether 
Professors  Tyndall  and  Helmholtz  have 
in  a similar  manner  misapprehended  the 
sonorous  effects  of  their  own  favorite 
double  siren  shall  stand  or  fall  on  its  merits 
after  their  explanation  has  been  fairly  ex- 
amined. As  they  both  give  substantially 
the  same  explanation  of  their  experiments 
with  this  instrument,  agreeing  in  every  es- 
sential feature,  I shall  confine  my  strictures 
almost  entirely  to  that  of  Professor  Tyn- 
dall, whose  language  is  more  explicit,  not 
having  had  to  pass  through  the  ordeal  of 
a translation  into  English. 

Before  directly  considering  the  explana- 
tion of  this  author,  which  is  so  confidently 
supposed  to  embody  one  of  the  most  ex- 
plicit proofs  in  favor  of  the  law  of  inter- 
ference in  sound-waves,  it  will  be  quite 
necessary  that  I should  describe  briefly 
the  simplest  form  of  this  modern  acous- 
tical instrument  called  the  siren,  and  then 
show  how  two  sirens  are  operated  together, 
making  what  is  known  as  the  double  siren , 
in  order  that  this  demonstrative  evidence 
may  be  duly  appreciated. 

Imagine  a circular  disk,  about  a foot  in 
diameter,  secured  to  an  upright  spindle 
passing  through  its  center.  Then  imagine 
12  half-inch  holes  through  this  disk  in  a 
circle  near  its  outer  edge,  and  that  these 
holes  are  equidistant  apart.  Now  suppose 
that  a half-inch  pipe  leading  from  a wind- 
chest  is  so  adjusted  that  its  open  end 
presses  against  the  lower  side  of  this  disk 
at  the  exact  line  of  the  circle  of  holes. 
This  may  be  said  to  constitute  a single 
siren. 

The  disk  now  stands  still,  and  one  of 
the  12  holes  is  exactly  over  the  open  end 


of  the  pipe.  If  air  is  forced  through  the 
pipe  from  the  wind-chest,  it  will  pass  in  a 
jet  up  through  this  aperture  in  the  disk; 
but  should  the  disk  slowly  revolve  while 
the  pipe  remains  fixed,  it  is  evident  that 
the  orifice  of  the  pipe  will  soon  change 
from  the  aperture  in  the  disk  to  one  of  the 
spaces  between  these  perforations,  thus 
cutting  off  its  jet  of  air;  and  the  disk  con- 
tinuing to  revolve,  a puff  of  air  will  occur 
as  each  perforation  passes  in  line  with  the 
outlet  of  the  pipe. 

It  is  manifest  that  by  a more  rapid  ro- 
tation of  the  disk  the  puffs  of  air  will 
occur  in  more  rapid  succession,  till,  by  in- 
creasing the  speed  of  rotation, as  is  proved 
by  the  operation  of  the  instrument,  the 
puffs  will  succeed  each  other  so  rapidly  as 
to  blend  into  a continuous  tone, resembling 
that  of  a whistle,  the  pitch  of  which  be- 
comes higher  in  the  exact  ratio  as  the 
speed  of  rotation  is  increased,  which,  of 
course, correspondingly  increases  the  num- 
ber of  puffs  per  second. 

It  will  now  be  understood  that  each  one 
of  these  air-puffs  is  exactly  the  same  thing 
as  a separate  vibration,  or  equivalent  in 
effect  to  a single  oscillation  of  a harp- 
string, tuning-fork,  or  any  other  sound- 
producing  instrument.  Each  rotation  of 
the  disk, therefore, causes  12  puffs  orvibra- 
tions;  and  should  the  motion  of  the  disk 
be  increased  to  36!  rotations  per  second, 
it  will  exactly  sound  the  letter  A,  which 
requires  440  vibrations  to  the  second, — 
thus  giving  a beautiful  demonstration  of 
the  universal  law  in  acoustics — that  the 
pitch  of  every  fundamental  sound,  from 
whatever  instrument,  corresponds  precise- 
ly to  the  number  of  vibrations  in  a second 
which  generates  the  tone. 

By  means  of  a proper  registering  device, 
with  a dial  geared  to  the  rotating  spindle, 
the  number  of  rotations  of  the  disk  in  a 
minute  to  any  particular  pitch  may  be  re- 


288 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


corded,  which,  multiplied  by  the  12  holes 
in  the  disk  and  divided  by  60  seconds  in 
a minute, determines  the  number  of  vibra- 
tions per  second,  giving  thereby  the  true 
pitch  of  the  siren  at  that  speed  of  rotation, 
and  of  any  other  instrument  to  which  it 
may  be  compared. 

A double  siren  consists  in  the  attachment 
of  another  disk  like  the  one  described  to 
the  same  spindle  a foot  or  more  above  the 
lower  one,  but  turned  upside  down  so  that 
their  two  sets  of  puffs  project  the  air  to- 
ward each  other.  The  upper  disk  may  be 
so  secured  to  the  common  spindle  that  by 
turning  a handle  it  may  be  adjusted  so 
that  its  puffs  or  vibrations  will  occur  sim- 
ultaneously with  those  of  the  lower  disk, 
or  alternately,  just  as  the  operator  may 
desire;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the 
pipe  which  conducts  the  air  to  the  upper 
disk  may  be  shifted  backward  or  forward, 
causing  the  same  effect.  If  the  two  disks 
or  their  pipes  are  adjusted  to  puff  at  the 
same  time,  or  in  synchronism  with  each 
other,  the  tones  of  the  two  disks  are  in 
exact  unison, and  will  continue  so  no  mat- 
ter whether  the  disks  revolve  slowly  or 
rapidly,  or  whether  the  pitch  of  the  two 
tones  is  thus  raised  or  lowered.  But  should 
the  upper  disk  or  its  pipe  be  so  shifted 
that  its  puffs  will  occur  alternately  with, 
or  half  way  between, the  puffs  of  the  lower 
disk,  then,  instead  of  unison,  we  have  that 
condition  which  Professor  Tyndall  calls  a 
“phase  of  opposition,”  in  which  the  two 
systems  of  waves  are  in  “interference,” 
with  the  crests  or  condensations  from  one 
disk  coinciding  with  the  furrows  or  rare- 
factions from  the  other,  and  in  which  con- 
dition the  two  sets  of  puffs  neutralize  each 
other,  “and  we  have  no  sound.” 

I have  now,  if  the  reader  has  closely 
followed  me  in  this  explanation  of  the 
Rouble  siren , prepared  him  for  Professor 
Tyndall’s  remarkable  demonstration,  in 


his  own  words,  by  which  he  proves  that 
we  “can  produce  silence  by  adding  sound 
to  sound,”  just  as  “by  adding  light  to  light 
we  may  produce  darkness,”  and  I espe- 
cially request  that  the  Professor’s  conclu- 
sive language  shall  be  carefully  perused. 
It  is  as  follows  (. Lectures  on  Sound , page 
291 : — 

“But  in  the  case  now  before  us,  where  the  circle 
is  perforated  by  12  orifices,  the  rotation  through 
l-24th  of  its  circumference  causes  the  apertures  of 
the  upper  wind-chest  [I  have  simplified  the  de- 
scription by  supposing  a single  pipe  leading  from 
the  wind-chest]  to  be  closed  at  the  precise  moment 
when  those  of  the  lower  siren  are  opened,  and  vice 
versa.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  intervals  be- 
tween the  puffs  of  the  lower  siren,  which  correspond 
to  the  rarefactions  of  its  sonorous  waves,  are  here 
filled  by  the  puffs  or  condensations  of  the  upper 
siren.  In  fact,  the  condensations  of  the  one  coin- 
cide with  the  rarefactions  of  the  other,  and  the  abso- 
lute extinction  of  the  sounds  of  both  sirens  is  the 
consequence.  ” 

The  “absolute”  self-contradiction  and 
absurdity  of  this  assertion  immediately  fol- 
lows, in  Professor  Tyndall’s  own  words: — 

“I  may  seem  to  you  to  have  exceeded  the  truth 
here;  for  when  the  handle  is  placed  in  the  position 
which  corresponds  to  absolute  extinction,  you  still 
have  a distinct  sound.  And  when  the  handle  is 
turned  continuously,  though  alternate  swellings 
and  sinkings  01  the  tone  occur,  the  sinkings  by  no 
means  amount  to  absolute  silence.  The  reason  is 
this:  The  sound  of  the  siren  is  a highly  composite 
one.  By  the  suddenness  and  violence  of  its  shocks, 
not  only  does  it  produce  waves  corresponding  to  the 
slumber  of  its  orifices,  but  the  aerial  disturbance 
breaks  up  into  secondary  waves  which  associate 
themselves  with  the  primary  waves  of  the  instru- 
ment, exactly  as  the  harmonics  of  a string  or  an 
open  organ-pipe  mix  with  their  fundamental  tone. 

. . . Now,  by  turning  the  upper  siren  through 
i-24th  of  its  circumference,  we  extinguish  utterly 
the  fundamental  tone.  But  we  do  not  extinguish 
its  octave.” 

Here,  reader,  we  have  the  demonstrative 
proof \ in  a citation  which  is  the  most  as- 
tounding confession  of  weakness  and  un- 
tenableness of  position  perhaps  ever  seen 
from  the  pen  of  a scientific  writer.  It  only 


Chav.  Vt. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


289 


needs  to  be  taken  apart  and  looked  at 
carefully  to  place  this  lecturer  in  a most 
unenviable  light  as  a physicist. 

He  first  assures  us,  in  words  of  ringing 
positiveness,  that  we  can  “produce  silence 
by  adding  sound  to  sound,”  and  that  this 
is  “the  most  cogent  proof”  of  the  undu- 
latory  theory  of  light,  as  it  can  be  shown 
in  a similar  manner  that  “by  adding  light 
to  light  we  may  produce  darkness."  He 
then  brings  forward  the  double  siren , the 
only  instrument  adapted  to  this  experi- 
ment of  forced  alternation,  and  gives  us 
his  “most  cogent  proof”  that  his  former 
assertion  was  to  be  believed.  After  com- 
pleting the  experiment  he  tells  his  au- 
dience that  “the  absolute  extinction  of  the 
sounds  of  both  sirens  is  the  consequence,  ” and 
then  innocently  adds,  “when  the  handle  is 
placed  in  the  position  which  corresponds 
to  absolute  extinction  you  still  have  a distinct 
sound,"  and  “the  sinkings  by  no  ?neans 
amount  to  absolute  silence"  ; and  finally, 
after  a confused  attempt  at  qualifying,  to 
smooth  off  the  “suddenness  and  violence 
of  the  shocks”  of  his  contradictory  state- 
ments, by  “ secondary  waves  which  associate 
themselves  with  the  primary  waves,"  he 
sums  up  his  “most  cogent  proof”  by  pro- 
foundly telling  his  class  that  “we  extinguish 
utterly  the  fundamental  tone.  But  we  do  not 
extinguish  its  octave" ! 

In  the  name  of  science  and  reason, — in 
the  name  of  acoustics  and  common  sense, 
— what  should  have  been  expected  but 
this  very  result  ? By  operating  the  two 
sirens  together  (making  them  practically 
but  one  instrument)  in  such  a manner  as 
to  cause  their  puffs  to  occur  alternately, 
he  actually  doubled  the  7iumber  of  puffs  or 
vibrations,  which,  as  every  tyro  knows,  must 
necessarily  raise  the  fundamental  tone  to  its 
octave! 

With  all  the  experiments  in  which  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  had  just  been  engaged, 


stopping  off  a string  in  the  middle  to  raise 
its  fundamental  tone  to  the  octave  by 
doubling  the  nutnber  of  its  vibrations,  yet  he 
could  not  see  that  by  placing  the  upper 
siren  so  that  its  12  puffs  should  alternate 
with  the  12  puffs  of  the  lower  siren  he 
produced  24  puffs  to  each  revolution,  ex- 
actly the  same  as  if  he  had  used  but  one 
siren  with  24  perforations  instead  of  12! 
This  must  necessarily  be  the  case  when 
the  two  disks  are  within  sympathetic  dis- 
tance of  each  other,  as  I will  soon  clearly 
demonstrate.  By  thus  doubling  the  num- 
ber of  vibrations  he  naturally  and  legit- 
imately raised  the  two  unison  fundamental 
tones  to  their  octave,  and  the  most  aston- 
ishing thing  in  the  whole  matter  is  that 
Professor  Tyndall  should  have  been  so 
astonished  at  the  result  that  he  falls  into 
utter  confusion  in  attempting  to  explain 
it,  and  ends  by  the  contradictory  state- 
ment just  quoted  that  “the  absolute  extinc- 
tion of  the  sounds  of  both  sirens  is  the 
consequence,”  “ but  we  do  not  extinguish 
its  octave" ! 

Instead  of  at  once  recognizing  the  oc- 
tave tone  as  the  proper  result,  and  the 
very  one  to  have  been  legitimately  ex- 
pected from  doubling  the  number  of  puffs, 
he  tries  to  account  for  it  to  his  anxious 
auditors  as  one  of  the  incidental  and  in- 
explicable “clang-tints”  or  “over-tones” 
of  this  “highly  composite”  instrument, 
resulting  from  its  “ secondary  waves  which 
associate  themselves  with  the  primary 
waves"  ! 

Though  I was  not  present  at  this  re- 
markable lecture,  I can  imagine  the  Pro- 
fessor in  a confused  perspiration  listening 
to  the  two  disks  of  his  double  siren  whistling 
out  their  melodious  octave  (the  very  thing, 
of  course,  they  ought  to  do,  only  he  did 
not  know  it,)  and  wondering  what  to  say 
to  his  curiously  anxious  and  equally  con- 
fused audience  of  scientific  students! 


290 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


He  finally  stops  the  machine,  and  after 
collecting  his  demoralized  thoughts  for  a 
moment,  he  says,  in  substance : — 

“You  have  all  observed,  during  this  conclusive 
experiment,  that  the  sounds  of  both  sirens  were 
absolutely  extinguished,  and  that  you  did  not  hear 
the  least  tone.  [Applause.]  You  may  think,  some 
of  you,  that  I have  not  told  the  truth.  Well,  in 
fact,  I haven’t.  You  did  hear  the  octave,  but  that, 
you  must  remember,  is  just  the  same  as  no  sound 
at  all,  so  far  as  my  argument  is  concerned,  and  the 
reason  why  you  hear  it  and  you  don't  hear  it  [Hear ! 
hear !]  is  because  the  double  siren  is  a highly  com- 
posite instrument, having  a number  of  distinct  tones 
and  clang-tints  that  don’t  properly  belong  to  its 
number  of  orifices,  but  are  accidental,  the  same  as 
a string  or  an  open  organ-pipe  breaks  up  the  air 
into  secondary  -waves  that  associate  themselves  with 
the  primary  waves  in  such  a manner  that  the  sud- 
denness and  violence  of  the  shocks  make  you  think 
you  hear  it  when  you  really  don’t.  [Bravo !]  But 
still  I must  confess  that  when  the  handle  is  turned 
to  the  point  which  would  indicate  silence,  you  still 
hear  a distinct  sound,  and  the  sinkings  and  swellings 
by  no  means  amount  to  absolute  silence.  [Students 
glance  at  each  other  anxiously !]  But  as  that  is 
only  the  octave,  as  before  suggested,  it,  of  course, 
as  you  all  know,  amounts  to  nothing,  since  the 
fundamental  tone  is  extinguished.  [Students  re- 
assured!] I trust,  therefore,  you  all  agree  with  me 
that  this  demonstration  of  adding  sound  to  sound 
is  complete,  and  that  my  former  statement,  on 
which  the  undulatory  theory  of  light  was  so  firmly 
established  that  the  whole  scientific  world  has 
adopted  it,  namely,  that  by  adding  sound  to  sound 
we  may  produce  silence,  has  been  fully  sustained 
by  the  result.”  [Hear!  hear!] 

Seriously, was  there  ever  a great  lecturer 
so  pitiably  at  sea  in  the  midst  of  a simple 
scientific  experiment,  and  that,  too,  with 
his  own  favorite  and  familiar  apparatus? 
It  need  not  surprise  the  reader  in  the  least 
if  the  Professor,  in  his  next  course  of  pub- 
lic lectures  on  Sound,  when  stopping  off  a 
string  in  the  middle  to  produce  its  octave, 
should  suddenly  become  confused  and  tell 
his  audience  that  “the  absolute  extinction 
of  the  sounds  of  both”  halves  of  the  string 
“is  the  consequence,”  though  “we  do  not 
extinguish  its  octave" ; and  that  the  reason 


why  “we  hear  no  sound”  is  because  “the 
sound  of  the”  string  is  a “highly  composite" 
one, and  that  “the  suddenness  and  violence 
of  the  shocks”  of  the  “secondary  waves 
which  associate  themselves  with  the  pri- 
mary waves”  produce  a number  of  har- 
monics or  over-tones  not  represented  by 
the  normal  vibrational  rate  of  the  string 
proper,  and  thus  cause  the  “absolute  ex- 
tinction” of  the  fundamental  tone,  though 
“we  do  not  extinguish  its  octave”!  This 
would  be  just  as  lucid  as  his  explanation 
of  the  double  siren. 

Here,  then,  we  have  that  “most  cogent 
proof”  of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light, 
since  the  Professor  can  so  clearly  "produce 
silence  by  adding  sound  to  sound” ! If  he  is 
as  successful  in  “adding  light  to  light,” 
there  will  be  no  question  about  his  having 
produced  “darkness,”  in  one  sense,  at 
least. 

Now,  the  only  attempt  which  Professor 
Tyndall  can  possibly  make  to  escape  this 
crushing  demolition  of  his  explanation  of 
the  double  siren  is  to  assume  that  the  24 
alternate  and  consecutive  puffs,  coming 
equally  from  the  two  disks  a foot  or  so 
apart,  do  not  produce  the  same  effect  of 
converting  the  fundamental  tone  into  its 
octave  as  if  ail  the  puffs  or  vibrations  em- 
anated from  one  disk.  I presume  he  will 
necessarily  resort  to  this,  if  he  speaks  at 
all,  to  save  himself  and  his  theory,  as  there 
is  clearly  nothing  else  left  for  him  to  say, 
and  hence  I shall  be  obliged  to  cruelly 
snatch  even  this  straw  from  the  drowning 
physicist  by  quoting  his  own  explicit  ad- 
missions. 

Before  doing  so  I wish  to  reason  one 
moment  with  the  reader,  to  show  the  weak- 
ness of  such  a quibble.  Let  us  suppose 
one  of  the  disks  of  the  double  siren  removed. 
I now  ask,  would  not  the  fundamental  tone 
caused  by  the  12  puffs  of  the  other  disk  be 
exactly  the  same,  if,  instead  of  one  circle 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


291 


of  12  holes,  there  were  two  circles  of  6 
holes  each,  supplied  with  wind  through 
separate  pipes?  Manifestly  the  effect 
would  be  exactly  the  same  so  long  as  the 
puffs  from  the  two  circles  alternated  or 
occurred  intermediately,  making  12  con- 
secutive puffs  in  regular  succession  at  each 
revolution  of  the  disk.  Professor  Tyndall 
would  not  think  of  questioning  the  truth 
of  this  proposition, -unless  he  wished  to 
excite  the  astonishment  of  every  scientific 
thinker. 

Then,  this  being  admitted,  would  it  not 
produce  the  same  effect  exactly,  supposing 
the  disk  large  enough,  if  the  two  circles  of 
6 holes  each  were  a foot  apart, — that  is, 
supposing  they  continued  to  puff  alter- 
nately as  before?  No  one  can  doubt  but 
that  the  same  fundamental  tone  would 
result  in  either  case,  as  with  12  orifices  in 
one  circle.  Then,  why  should  not  the 
same  thing  exactly  occur,  if,  instead  of 
one  disk  with  two  circles  of  6 holes  each, 
there  were  two  disks  placed  no  greater 
distance  apart  than  these  circles,  with  6 
orifices  in  each,  so  adjusted  that  their 
puffs  occurred  in  the  same  perfect  alter- 
nation? Thus,  link  by  link  the  chain  of 
logic  is  being  coiled  around  this  fallacious 
explanation  of  the  double  siren.  Although 
I do  not  expect  the  force  of  this  reasoning 
to  be  acknowledged  by  Professor  Tyndall, 
I propose  to  let  him  speak  from  his  pub- 
lished lectures,  and  thus  confess  the  ab- 
surdity of  his  whole  argument : — 

“The  puffs  of  a locomotive  at  starting  follow  each 
other  slowly  at  first,  but  they  soon  increase  so 
rapidly  as  to  be  almost  incapable  of  being  counted. 
If  this  increase  could  continue  until  Xhtpuffs  num- 
bered 50  or  60  a second,  the  approach  of  the  engine 
mould  be  heralded  by  an  organ-pcal  of  tremendous 
power." — Lectures  on  Sound , p.  50. 

Query:  Would  it  make  any  difference 
with  this“organ-peal  of  tremendous  power” 
coming  from  the  distant  engine,  should  one 


half  of  the  puffs  come  from  the  steam-cylinder 
on  one  side  of  the  locomotive  and  the  other 
half  from  the  other — six  feet  apart — so  they 
only  alternated ? I do  not  think  that  even 
this  lecturer  would  venture  to  assert,  after 
his  attention  was  called  to  the  fact,  that 
the  “organ-peal”  would  depend  in  the 
slightest  degree  upon  whether  the  puffs 
all  came  from  one  side  of  the  locomotive 
or  alternately  from  both  sides,  so  there 
were  50  or  60  alternate  puffs  a second  in 
regular  succession ! Hence,  if  his  loco- 
motive illustration  contains  a vestige  of 
philosophical  sense,  it  shows  his  complete 
misapprehension  of  the  action  of  the 
double  siren,  and  establishes  the  correct- 
ness of  the  explanation  I have  given, dem- 
onstrating that  the  true  cause  of  the  tone 
jumping  from  the  fundamental  to  its  oc- 
tave was  the  shifting  of  one  siren  in  such 
manner  that  its  12  puffs  would  occur  in- 
termediately between  the  12  puffs  of  the 
other,  thus  making  24  puffs  to  eaqli  revo- 
lution of  the  spindle. 

Professor  Tyndall,  the  reader  will  recol- 
lect, attributes  this  octave  not  to  the  24 
vibrations  caused  by  the  24  alternate  puffs 
issuing  from  the  24  alternate  orifices  which 
he  actually  had  right  before  his  eyes  and 
ears,  but  to  some  mysterious  and  indefin- 
able breaking  up  of  the  primary  air-waves 
which  were  produced  by  the  12  unison 
puffs  “into  secotidary  waves  which  asso- 
ciate themselves  with  the  primary  waves 
of  the  instrument."  Hence,  he  assures  us 
that  this  particular  octave,  unlike  all  other 
octaves  ever  heard,  was  not  produced  by 
the  required  number  of  24  vibrations  at  all, 
but  by  the  disintegration  of  primary  waves, 
though,  as  usual,  it  flatly  contradicts  his 
teaching  in  another  place,  where  he  says 
that  no  octave,  from  whatever  instrumetit,  can 
be  produced  without  doubling  the  number 
of  vibrations  which  caused  its  fundamental 
tone!  Notice  how  explicitly  his  statements 


292 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


demonstrate  his  law  of  “interference, ’’and 
cause  their  own  “neutralization”  by  “mu- 
tual destruction”: — 

“ Placing  a movable  bridge  under  the  middle  of 
the  string , and  pressing  the  string  against  the 
bridge,  I divide  it  into  two  equal  parts.  Plucking 
either  of  those  at  its  centre,  a musical  note  is  ob- 
tained, which  many  of  you  recognize  as  the  octave 
of  the  fundamental  note.  Now,  in  all  cases,  and 
with  all  instruments  [the  double  siren,  of  course, 
as  well  as  others,]  the  octave  of  a note  is  produced 
by  doubling  the  number  of  its  vibrations." — Lectures 
on  Sound,  p.  go. 

Hence,  we  have  the  clearest  possible 
admission  that  the  octave  produced  by  the 
double  siren,  on  which  the  Professor  be- 
comes so  terribly  confused,  was  actually 
caused,  just  as  I have  urged,  by  the  re- 
quired 24  vibrations  or  puffs  to  the  revo- 
lution issuing  from  the  two  disks  in  alter- 
nation, and  not  by  the  breaking  up  of 
primary  air-waves  at  all,  since  “in  all  cases 
and  with  all  instruments  the  octave  of  a tiote 
is  produced  by  doubling  the  number  of  its  vi- 
brations" ! Was  there  ever  a more  direct 
self-contradiction  perpetrated  by  a scien- 
tific writer? 

To  suppose  Professor  Tyndall,  while 
attempting  to  explain  the  double  siren  to 
his  audience,  really  unaware  of  this  well- 
known  law  in  acoustics,  that  doubling  the 
number  of  puffs  or  vibrations  would  neces- 
sarily raise  the  fundamental  tone  to  its 
octave  (which  he  entirely  ignores  in  his 
explanation),  is  a supposition  at  once  as- 
tonishing and  incomprehensible ; because, 
as  we  have  just  seen,  he  clearly  recognized 
the  law  when  experimenting  with  strings, 
and  could  hardly  have  forgotten  it.  To 
suppose  that  he  knowingly  suppressed  this 
true  and  only  explanation  of  the  octave 
(and  thus  imposed  upon  the  intelligence 
of  his  audience)  in  support  of  his  former 
assertion  that  “we  can  produce  silence  by 
adding  sound  to  sound”  would  be  cruel,  if 
not  wicked.  The  charitable  view  would 


therefore  seem  to  be  that  though  he  knew 
the  law  and  was  aware  of  the  facts,  yet  in 
the  complexity  resulting  from  the  “sec- 
ondary waves  which  associate  themselves 
with  the  primary  waves”  with  the  “sud- 
denness and  violence  of  the  shocks”  from 
that  “highly  composite”  instrument,  he 
became  temporarily  demoralized,  and  lost 
sight  of  the  legitimate  solution.  Hence, 
the  confused  explanation  involving  such 
direct  contradictions  of  what  he  had  taught 
on  other  occasions. 

But  here  a difficulty  confronts  us.  If 
this  contradictory  and  absurd  explanation 
was  the  result  of  a momentary  confusion, 
how  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that 
he  has  since  published  to  the  world  in  a 
carefully  prepared  book  every  detail  of 
that  extraordinary,  and,  I may  say,  ridicu- 
lous analysis  of  the  double  siren? — and  not 
only  so,  but  has  superintended  the  work 
through  various  editions  and  translations 
into  a number  of  European  languages, 
with  not  one  alteration  from  the  original 
fiasco?  The  charitable  view  I have  taken 
here  looks  like  breaking  down. 

And  it  is  equally  astonishing  that  of  the 
hundreds  of  scientific  students  who  listened 
to  that  lecture,  and  the  tens  of  thousands 
who  have  since  read  his  book,  not  one  has 
had  the  temerity  or  the  kindness  to  tell 
the  Professor  what  was  the  matter  with 
his  favorite  siren,  who,  if  she  had  not  Ab- 
solutely “lured  him  to  destruction,”  had 
triumphantly  succeeded  in  turning  his 
head  with  her  fascinating  music! 

It  really  seems  incredible  that  a scientist 
of  such  reputed  ability  could  not  have 
seen  that  this  close  proximity  of  the  two 
disks  of  the  double  siren  to  each  other — re- 
volving only  a few  inches  apart — was  the 
true  cause  of  producing  this  octave,  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  fact  that  their  24  al- 
ternate and  successive  puffs  were  the  exact 
number  required  for  such  a result.  The 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


293 


shallow  superficiality  which  was  incapable 
of  thus  connecting  the  two  series  of  puffs, 
making  their  effect  the  same  as  if  issuing 
from  a single  disk,  is  as  pitiable  as  it  is 
surprising.  The  only  serious  and  practical 
way  of  accounting  for  such  want  of  scien- 
tific resource  is  the  fact  (as  every  one 
knows  who  has  ever  compared  these  Lec- 
tures on  Sound  with  the  work  of  Professor 
Helmholtz  on  the  same  subject)  that  the 
great  German  investigator  made  the  mistake 
first , while  Professor  Tyndall,  according 
to  his  uniform  habit,  took  the  whole  mat- 
ter for  granted  just  because  that  eminent 
physicist  had  announced  it  as  science. 

Hence,  because  Professor  Helmholtz 
had  mistakenly  employed  this  plain  and 
legitimate  octave  of  the  double  siren , gen- 
erated by  the  requisite  24  vibrations  or 
puffs,  to  illustrate  his  improved  ideas  of 
over-tones , there  was,  of  course,  nothing 
left  for  Professor  Tyndall  but  to  do  like- 
wise, and  thus  relegate  this  simple  result 
of  24  vibrations  or  consecutive  puffs  to 
an  indefinable  atmospheric  disturbance 
breaking  up  into  secondary  waves  which 
associate  themselves  with  the  primary 
waves  of  the  instrument,  owing  to  the  sud- 
denness and  violence  of  its  shocks!  He 
seemed  to  have  become  so  infatuated  with 
Professor  Helmholtz,  or  this  music  of  his 
siren,  as  to  temporarily  lose  his  memory, 
or  he  surely  would  have  recollected  what 
he  had  before  so  distinctly  taught,  as  just 
quoted,  that  “in  all  eases , and  with  all  in- 
struments, the  octave  of  a note  is  produced  by 
doubling  the  number  of  its  vibrations" ! Had 
the  “organ-peal  of  tremendous  power,” 
which  the  two  cylinders  of  a locomotive 
might  produce  by  sufficiently  rapid  alter- 
nate puffing  retained  a place  in  his  mem- 
ory he  would  never  have  been  cajoled  into 
such  an  unenviable  plight  by  the  super- 
ficial blunder  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  but 
would  have  been  able  to  connect  the  alter- 


nate puffs  of  two  disks  only  a foot  apart 
into  one  system  of  24  vibrations  to  a revo- 
lution as  easily  as  he  could  the  alternate 
puffs  of  two  steam-cylinders  six  feet  apart, 
which,  as  any  one  knows,  could,  if  rapid 
enough,  be  legitimately  combined  to  make 
an  “organ-peal  of  tremendous  power.” 

Look  for  a moment  at  the  language  of 
Professor  Helmholtz,  and  note  the  family 
resemblance  between  it  and  that  of  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall: — 

“ The  puffs  of  air  in  one  box  occur  exactly  in  the 
middle  between  those  of  the  other,  and  the  two 
prime  tones  mutually  destroy  each  other.  . . . Hence, 
in  the  new  position  the  tone  is  weaker , because  it  is 
deprived  of  several  of  its  partials  [over-tones]  ; but 
it  does  not  entirely  cease;  it  rather  jumps  up  an 
octave." — Sensations  of  Tone,  p.  246. 

It  seems  that  Professor  Helmholtz  even 
sets  the  example  of  self-contradiction;  for 
how,  in  the  name  of  reason,  can  “ the  two 
prime  tones  mutually  destroy  each  other," 
when  they  do  not  entirely  cease , but  rather 
jump  up  an  octave l If  a man  jumps  up  on 
the  top  of  a fence,  he  is  not  destroyed , or 
neutralized , or  obliterated, , in  any  sense 
whatever.  He  has  only  exchanged  a 
lower  for  a higher  position!  So  the  two 
fundamental  unison  tones  of  the  two  disks, 
caused  by  12  puffs  to  the  revolution, simply 
combine  into  one  tone  of  24  puffs  to  the 
revolution, which  lifts  it  to  a higher  position 
in  the  musical  scale, or, as  Professor  Helm- 
holtz plainly  puts  it,  the  tone  “jumps  up 
an  octave,”  without  involving  any  such 
thing  as  mutual  destruction  or  neutraliza- 
tion. 

The  reason  why  “the  tone  is  weaker" 
in  the  “new  position”  seems  to  be  a pro- 
found mystery  to  this  eminent  investiga- 
tor, save  on  the  supposition  that  it  consists 
of  the  first  or  principal  over-tone  (“deprived 
of  several  of  its  partials”),  which  is  always 
too  weak  to  be  distinctly  heard  by  the  un- 
aided ear  while  the  prime  tone  is  being 
sounded.  It  of  course  never  occurred  to 


294 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


this  standard  authority  on  Sound  that  the 
reason  why  the  octave  was  “weaker”  was 
simply  because  it  was  constituted  of  a single 
series  of  24  successive  puffs  or  vibrations 
to  a revolution,  while  the  prime  tone  was 
composed  of  two  series  of  12  double  or 
unison  puffs  which  necessarily  re-enforced 
each  other,  and  by  which  means  their  in- 
tensity was  increased  fourfold , as  already 
quoted  from  Professor  Tyndall.  The 
“weaker”  character  of  this  octave  is  thus 
beautifully  accounted  for  according  to  my 
explanation  of  the  double  siren , and  would 
have  been  easily  comprehended  by  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz  but  for  his  pet  brood  of 
over-tones  which  he  was  just  nursing  into 
life,  and  on  which  account  he  pressed  into 
service  the  assistance  of  this  “highly  com- 
posite” siren  as  a kind  of  foster-mother. 
But  he  will  learn  when  he  reads  this  re- 
view, if  not  before,  that  she  has  at  last 
discarded  the  whole  family  as  too  con- 
spicuously illegitimate  and  outlandishly 
ungeneric  for  even  foster-children. 

I now  propose  to  Professor  Helmholtz, 
with  all  deference  and  respect,  and  through 
him  to  the  scientific  world,  a simple  prac- 
tical test  of  this  whole  problem,  by  which 
to  demonstrate  either  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  my  explanation  of  the  double  siren,  and 
which  will  also  and  equally  demonstrate 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  his  own  solution, 
since  one  or  the  other  of  our  explanations 
must  necessarily  fall  to  the  ground. 

Suppose,  instead  of  a double  siren,  such 
as  already  described,  having  two  disks,  we 
construct  a triple  siren , having  three  disks, 
each  disk  containing  a circle  of  12  orifices 
and  supplied  with  wind  by  a separate  pipe, 
all  three  being  secured  one  above  another 
to  the  same  rotating  spindle.  It  is  evident, 
if  the  pipes  leading  to  the  three  circles  of 
orifices  should  be  so  adjusted  that  when 
the  spindle  rotates  the  three  disks  shall 
puff  simultaneously  that  they  will  unitedly 


make  only  12  puffs  to  the  revolution  of  the 
spindle,  and  hence  the  fundamental  tone 
will  be  an  intense  triple  unison. 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  the  spindle 
makes  exactly  1 1 revolutions  in  a second, 
producing  132  puffs, or  the  precise  number 
necessary  to  generate  the  fundamental 
note  C,  with  the  three  disks  puffing  simul- 
taneously, and  consequently  all  sounding 
the  same  note  in  unison.  According  to 
the  explanation  of  Professor  Helmholtz, 
the  disks  are  not  only  sounding  this  prime 
C,  but  they  are  also  faintly  sounding  sev- 
eral over-tones  of  different  degrees  of 
pitch, though  they  are  not  distinctly  heard, 
owing  to  the  loudness  of  the  prime  note. 
The  first  or  principal  over-tone,  in  point 
of  intensity,  he  tells  us,  is  C1,  exactly  an 
octave  above  the  prime,  and  that  it  was 
this  over-tone,  “deprived  of  several  of  its 
partials,”  which  was  heard  as  the  octave  in 
the  experiment  with  the  double  siren  when 
the  two  prime  unisons  were  mutually  de- 
stroyed by  “interference.” 

As  we  now  have  three  disks  of  12  holes 
each  instead  of  two,  we  can  easily  make 
them  all  “interfere”  by  so  adjusting  their 
pipes  as  to  make  them  puff  in  regular  suc- 
cession one  after  another, with  the  intervals 
equidistant  apart,  thus  producing  36  con- 
secutive puffs  to  each  revolution  of  the 
spindle.  Supposing  the  rotation  to  con- 
tinue at  the  same  uniform  speed  after  the 
pipes  are  thus  shifted,  it  is  manifest  that 
36  successive  puffs  will  occur  in  the  time 
of  12  puffs  before  the  change.  What, then, 
must  take  place?  I here  announce  to  the 
physicists  of  Europe  and  America — and 
earnestly  request  these  high  authorities 
on  Sound  to  show  that  I am  mistaken — 
that  not  only  will  the  prime  C vanish  from 
the  sound,  but  the  octave  C1  will  also  not 
be  heard  at  all;  and  that  instead  of  C1, 
which  was  alone  heard  issuing  from  the 
double  siren  (being  in  that  case  the  proper 


ClIAI*.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


295 


tone  for  the  24  puffs  produced  at  each 
revolution),  we  will  only  hear  from  the 
triple  siren  the  note  G1,  or  the  fifth  above 
the  octave  C1,  being  the  exact  note  corre- 
sponding to  36  puffs  to  the  revolution 
under  that  uniform  speed  of  rotation. 

Will  Professor  Helmholtz  accept  the 
proposition  here  made,  and  join  the  writer 
in  carrying  out  this  test,  by  means  of  a 
triple  siren,  that  the  scientific  public  may 
know  what  to  depend  on?  If  he  is  as 
frank  and  candid  a physicist  and  investi- 
gator of  science  as  there  is  every  reason 
to  suppose  him  to  be  from  his  writings,  he 
surely  will  not  feel  at  liberty  to  refuse  aid- 
ing in  this  conclusive  solution  of  not  only 
the  action  of  the  double  siren,  but  also  of 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  this  so-called  law  of 
“ interference,”  as  well  as  of  the  entire 
wave-theory  of  sound,  since  they  all  neces- 
sarily stand  or  fall  together. 

If  this  advanced  scientist  should  deem 
the  suggestion  here  made  worthy  of  his 
attention,  and  if,  on  making  this  experi- 
ment, should  find  that  the  fundamental 
note  C entirely  vanishes  as  soon  as  the 
pipes  are  shifted  so  as  to  make  36  succes- 
sive puffs  to  the  revolution,  he  at  once  de- 
stroys this  law  of  “interference”  based  on 
half  wave-lengths  and  the  coalescence  of 
condensations  with  rarefactions,  since  in 
such  a case  as  this  it  is  only  third  wave- 
lengths, the  pipes  being  shifted  to  speak 
at  a third  of  an  interval  each  from  one 
fundamental  puff  to  another. 

Then,  again,  if  he  shall  find  that  not 
only  the  prime  C,  but  the  octave  C1,  is  si- 
lenced, what,  pray,  has  become  of  his  first 
over-tone,  which  made  all  the  music  heard 
coming  from  the  double  siren  after  the 
two  disks  were  placed  in  a phase  of  oppo- 
sition ? The  three  disks,  when  puffing 
simultaneously  and  producing  the  triple 
unison  fundamental  C,  surely  were  sound- 
ing also  their  first  partial  or  over-tone  Cl, 


according  to  Professor  Helmholtz ! What, 
then,  has  become  of  these  three  unison 
first  over-tones  if  they  are  not  heard, which 
they  will  not  be  if  my  prediction  is  correct? 
They  should  be  heard  even  louder  than 
from  the  double  siren  after  the  shift  takes 
place,havingoneadditional  re-enforcement. 

Finally,  if  the  only  tone  heard,  after  this 
so-called  “interference,”  shall  turn  out  to 
be  Gx,a  fifth  above  the  octave  C1,and  the 
very  pitch  of  tone  requiring  the  36  vibra- 
tions to  the  revolution,  as  every  physicist 
will  admit,  is  there  a scientific  thinker  on 
earth  who  would  not  at  once  decide  that 
the  explanation  here  given  of  the  double 
siren  as  the  cause  of  it  jumping  up  an  octave 
is  the  correct  one,  and  that  neither  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz  nor  Professor  Tyndall 
understood  the  instrument  they  were  ex- 
hibiting to  the  public  or  its  acoustical 
effects? 

As  an  evidence  that  this  is  a correct 
exposition  of  the  problem, any  acoustician 
will  readily  admit  if  the  three  disks  should 
be  perforated  each  with  a circle  of  orifices 
in  the  following  order — the  lower  one  with 
12,  the  middle  one  with  24,  and  the  upper 
one  with  36  holes,  that  when  sounding 
together  they  would  produce  the  chord 
C,  C1,  G1,  if  rotating  with  11  revolutions 
to  a second;  whereas,  if  the  lower  and 
middle  disks  should  be  suddenly  stopped 
off  and  silenced  while  thus  revolving,  the 
upper  disk,  with  36  orifices,  would  go  on 
sounding  G1  precisely  the  same  and  pro- 
ducing the  same  intensity  of  tone  as  would 
the  three  disks  if  perforated  with  12  holes 
each  and  if  so  adjusted  as  to  puff  in  suc- 
cession, as  already  described.  It  would 
be  a singularly  suggestive  fact,  to  say  the 
least,  if  this  explanation,  given  by  a writer 
who  has  never  seen  a double  siren,  should 
turn  out  to  be  the  correct  one,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  opinions  of  the  greatest  sound 
investigators  of  the  age ! 


296 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


In  conclusion,  on  this  subject,  I would 
say  that  I am  entirely  willing  that  the  dis- 
cussion shall  end  with  the  single  experi- 
ment here  suggested,  and  I feel  sure  that 
the  intelligent  reader  will  not  hesitate  to 
admit  its  extreme  fairness  as  well  as  the 
conclusive  character  of  such  a crucial  test 
as  the  one  proposed  of  a triple  siren. 

As  Professor  Helmholtz  owns  a double 
siren — a luxury,  by  the  way,  entirely  be- 
yond the  reach  of  this  writer, — it  would 
not  seem  to  be  a difficult  or  very  expensive 
task  for  him  to  attach  a third  disk  to  the 
rotating  spindle,  half  way  between  the 
other  two,  connected  with  a suitable  air- 
pipe,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the 
test  here  indicated;  and  it  would  seem  to 
be  the  very  least  this  learned  authority 
should  think  of  doing,  in  view  of  this  formal 
arraignment  and  the  arguments  presented 
to  support  it,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  stu- 
dents of  our  colleges  and  universities  that 
his  claim  to  their  consideration  as  a public 
instructor  in  matters  of  science  is  a just 
one ; while  he  can  rest  assured  that  the 
same  discerning  and  critical  students  will 
hold  him  rigidly  to  the  charge  of  having 
wholly  misunderstood  the  effects  of  his 
own  instrument,  till  such  time  as  this  test 
is  carried  out,  and  the  result  shown  to 
favor  his  exposition  of  these  phenomena 
as  published  in  the  Sensations  of  Tone. 

To  expedite  matters,  the  writer  will 
gladly  meet  the  entire  expense  of  making 
this  improvement  in  the  double  siren,  if  it 
would  be  any  inducement  to  Professor 
Helmholtz,  and  can  be  communicated 
with  at  any  time,  or  drawn  on  for  the  pur- 
pose through  the  American  publishers  of 
this  book.  I will  only  add  that  the  fore- 
going suggestions  are  intended  to  apply 
equally  to  Professor  Tyndall,  who  also,  as 
I am  informed, owns  one  of  the  Helmholtz 
improved  double  sirens. 

From  the  last  two  arguments  examined 


it  becomes  clearly  manifest  that  writers 
on  Sound  have  no  fixed  or  definite  idea 
of  what  they  mean  by  this  law  of  “inter- 
ference,” nor  any  settled  views  as  to  what 
constitutes  a “phase  of  opposition,”  by 
which  two  systems  of  unison  sound-waves 
may  “neutralize”  and  thus  “mutually  de- 
stroy” each  other,  notwithstanding  they 
make  this  assumed  “law”  a fundamental 
principle  of  the  wave-theory,  as  they  are 
unavoidably  compelled  to  do  on  the  ground 
of  wave-motion.  The  truth  of  this  charge 
against  physicists,  as  to  their  indefinite 
and  incongruous  conceptions  of  their  own 
theory,  involving  its  most  cardinal  prin- 
ciples, needs  no  other  confirmation  than 
the  self-evident  contradictions  embraced 
in  these  two  illustrated  arguments. 

I refer, of  course, to  the  manner  in  which 
“interference”  is  exemplified:  first,  by  the 
two  unison  forks  sounding  “half  a wave- 
length” apart, — by  which  means  the  con- 
densations of  one  of  the  systems  of  air-waves 
are  made  to  coalesce  with  the  rarefactions 
of  the  other  system,  regardless  of  the  syn- 
chronism or  alternation  of  their  vibrations; 
and  then  to  the  manner  in  which  the  same 
“interference”  is  explained  by  the  action 
of  the  double  sirc?i,\x ith  its  two  disks  puffing 
in  alternation  and  mutually  destroying  each 
other’s  sound,  without  the  least  reference  to 
their  distance  apart!  The  two  explanations 
are  not  only  clearly  unlike, but  are  directly 
in  conflict  with  each  other, the  two  in  turn 
mutually  annihilating  each  other’s  pre- 
tended “ interference,”  as  a moment’s  con- 
sideration will  show. 

Let  us,  then,  direct  our  attention  to  the 
two  unison  forks, placed  half  a wave-length 
apart, and  first  notice  how  they  are  said  to 
produce  their  “phase  of  opposition”  and 
the  “mutual  destruction”  of  each  other’s 
sound,  with  no  regard  to  whether  their  vi- 
brations occur  simultaneously  or  alternately. 
Such  a contingency  as  a possible  alter na- 


ClIAr.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


297 


tion  between  the  vibrations  of  these  forks 
is  not  hinted  at  by  the  lecturer;  and  if  it 
was  thought  of,  it  was  cautiously  concealed 
from  the  audience  as  too  grave  a difficulty 
to  attack.  Yet  this  circumstance, — the 
equal  possibility  of  such  synchronous  or  al- 
ternate vibration , — as  will  soon  be  seen, 
utterly  breaks  down  and  nullifies  this  law 
of  “interference,”  because  the  two  disks 
of  the  double  siren  are  claimed  to  produce 
the  same  “phase  of  opposition”  alone  by 
alternate  vibration , which  the  two  forks  do 
alone  by  vibrating  a definite  distance  apart! 
Hence,  the  manifest  self-disintegration  of 
the  two  phases  of  this  so-called  “phase  of 
opposition”  which  possesses  such  “mar- 
velous flexibility,”  in  the  language  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  as  to  act  on  two  opposite 
principles  at  the  same  time.  A more  sui- 
cidal law,  I will  venture  to  assert,  never 
thrust  its  audacious  claims  into  any  scien- 
tific hypothesis.  In  one  breath,  “inter- 
ference” and  “mutual  destruction”  result 
alone  from  the  two  sounding  instruments 
being  placed  half  a wave-length  apart, 
without  reference  to  their  equal  chance  of 
vibrating  alternately  or  synchronously,  while 
in  the  next  breath, — only  thirty  pages  fur- 
ther on, — the  same  “interference”  assumes 
a new  face  as  well  as  “phase  of  opposi- 
tion,” being  caused  alone  by  alternation, 
without  reference  to  what  distance  the 
instruments  may  happen  to  vibrate  from 
each  other.  Is  it  possible  that  a “law” 
can  be  relied  upon  as  having  any  founda- 
tion in  science  which  is  first  one  thing  and 
then  another,  as  suits  the  caprice  or  emer- 
gency of  a whimsical  and  self-contradict- 
ory theory?  A pretended  scientific  “law” 
can  surely  have  no  substantial  claims  upon 
the  consideration  of  any  mind  competent 
to  reason  philosophically,  which  is  forced 
to  change  its  very  nature  and  mode  of 
operation  within  thirty  pages,  under  the 
manipulation  of  its  ablest  exponent,  espe- 


cially when  such  metamorphosis  involves 
its  own  absolute  self-neutralization,  as  1 
will  now  endeavor  to  illustrate. 

First,  as  to  the  two  unison  forks  sound- 
ing half  a wave-length  apart.  Professor 
Tyndall  explicitly  tells  us  that  a “conden- 
sation” from  one  of  these  forks,  owing 
solely  to  the  fact  of  traveling  '‘''half  a wave- 
length," reaches  the  other  fork  exactly  in 
time  to  coalesce  with  its  “rarefaction’’  with- 
out regard  to  whether  the  latter  fork  is  at 
that  instant  sending  off  a rarefaction  or  a 
condensation!  Was  there  ever  seen  such  a 
limping  and  imbecile  hypothesis  as  this? 
Not  a word,  remember,  as  to  whether  the 
two  forks  swing  in  such  relation  to  each 
other  as  to  generate  condensations  simul- 
taneously, or  whether  one  fork  shall  gen- 
erate a condensation  at  the  same  instant 
the  other  generates  a rarefaction!  The 
Professor  ignores  such  a vital  circum- 
stance in  this  brilliantly  defective  expla- 
nation, for  reasons  perhaps  known  to  him- 
self ; but  it  can  not  be  ignored  nor  glossed 
over  here.  The  simple  and  homogeneous 
idea  of  “half  wave-lengths”  seemed  to  be 
all  this  “highest  living  authority”  was  ca- 
pable of  grasping  at  one  time.  To  have 
mixed  up  with  such  a profound  problem 
the  troublesome  question  of  the  possible 
alternate  vibration  of  the  two  forks,  which 
he  must  have  known  was  just  as  liable  to 
be  the  case  as  for  them  to  vibrate  simul- 
taneously in  the  same  direction,  was  evi- 
dently too  much  for  him  to  undertake  till 
such  time  as  he  should  come  to  the  double 
siren,  thirty  pages  further  on,  when  alter- 
nation  alone  should  be  the  subject  treated 
on,  without  any  reference  to  that  opposite 
kind  of  “interference”  caused  by  “half 
wave-lengths”! 

To  prepare  the  reader  for  a just  appre- 
ciation of  this  difficult  task  of  mixing  to- 
gether two  such  incongruous  phases  of  op- 
position and  attempting  to  make  them  har- 


298 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


monize,  let  us  first  note  the  concise  teach- 
ing of  Professor  Tyndall  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  a tuning-fork  generates  these  so- 
called  “condensations  and  rarefactions.” 
This  preliminary  instruction  is  essential 
to  a correct  understanding  of  the  problem 
of  how  two  forks  generate  interference 
and  consequent  silence  when  separated 
“half  a wave-length.” 

It  is  entirely  evident  that  this  lecturer 
had  lost  sight  of  his  recent  extraordinary 
teaching  in  regard  to  the  prong  of  a tuning- 
fork  “swiftly  advancing ,”  compressing  the 
air  “ immediately  in  front  of  it,”  and  thereby 
producing  “a  condensation  of  the  air,”  and 
then  “retreating”  and  “leaving  a partial 
vacuum  behind,”  by  means  of  which  “a 
rarefaction  of  the _ air”  is  produced,  and 
that  in  this  way  the  sound-waves,  consist- 
ing each  of  a condensation  and  a rarefaction, 
are  carved  and  moulded  and  sent  off  at  a 
velocity  of  1120  feet  a second!  (See  page 
264.)  His  uniform  teaching,  throughout 
his  Lectures  on  Sound,  is  that  a prong  of 
a tuning-fork  moving  outward  in  either 
direction  makes  the  “condensation”  of  the 
air,  while  the  same  prong  moving  inward 
makes  the  “rarefaction”  of  the  air.  Hence, 
the  absolute  indispensability  of  taking  into 
consideration  this  circumstance,  in  con- 
nection with  the  half  wave-length  separa- 
tion, in  order  to  arrive  at  any  rational  or 
consistent  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  law 
of  “interference”  between  such  “conden- 
sations and  rarefactions,”  as  exemplified 
by  the  action  of  two  forks  thus  stationed. 
Had  the  manner,  here  described,  of  gen- 
erating the  “condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions” of  sound-waves,  which  he  had  so 
carefully  elaborated  in  a previous  lecture, 
flashed  across  his  mind  while  laboring  to 
explain  to  his  audience  how  two  unison 
forks  produce  “interference”  by  simply 
being  made  to  sound,  half  a wave-length 
apart, he  must, I am  persuaded, have  hope- 


lessly broken  down  in  the  midst  of  his  ar- 
gument, unless  he  is  a man  of  extraordi- 
nary nerve.  The  writer  of  this  would  have 
dematerialized  under  such  a shock. 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  the  two  forks, 
half  a wave-length  apart,  happen  to  oscil- 
late alternately, — that  is,  suppose  the  prongs 
of  one  fork  should  swing  outward,  “rapidly 
advancing”  and  producing  “a  condensation 
of  the  air,” at  the  same  moment  the  prongs 
of  the  other  fork  “retreat”  or  swing  in- 
ward, producing  “a  rarefaction  of  the  air, 
which,  as  remarked  a moment  ago,  they 
are  just  as  liable  to  do  as  to  both  swing  in 
the  same  direction,  as  Professor  Tyndall 
well  knows, — it  is  perfectly  manifest  that 
the  condensed  half  of  the  wave  from  one 
fork  would  then  reach  the  other  fork  (half 
a wave-length  distant)  just  in  time  to  co- 
incide with  its  condensation  instead  of  its 
rarefaction,  thus  producing  complete  coin- 
cidence, or  the  exact  opposite  of  interfer- 
ence, which  Professor  Tyndall  was  trying 
to  make  out!  Fully  one  half  of  the  num- 
ber of  times,  therefore,  when  tested,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  chances,  there  would 
be  absolute  coincidence,  and  consequently 
a loud  sound  in  the  line  of  the  two  forks, 
while  the  other  half  of  the  time  there  would 
be  interference,  and  no  sound  at  all ! 

Clearly,  then,  “interference”  by  separa- 
tion half  a wave-length,  depends  entirely 
upon  the  accident  of  “coincidence”  be- 
tween the  vibrations  of  the  two  forks. 
Discard  this,  and  the  law  is  a nullity.  But 
as  there  is  nothing  in  this  pretended  law 
of  “interference”  in  the  first  place,  as  I 
contend,  and  no  difference  in  the  sound 
of  two  unison  forks,  whether  they  vibrate 
a half  or  a whole  wave-length  apart,  as 
Professor  Tyndall  might  have  easily  tested, 
it  follows  that  we  will  never  notice  the  least 
difference  in  the  effects  of  two  such  sound- 
ing instruments,  under  the  circumstances 
named, should  we  test  them  a million  times. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


From  the  foregoing  analysis  does  it  not 
clearly  follow,  if  there  is  any  foundation 
for  Professor  Tyndall’s  solution  of  the 
double  siren  and  its  peculiar  mode  of  pro- 
ducing interference  by  alternate  vibration, 
that  such  action  completely  neutralizes  the 
neutralization  caused  by  the  supposed  half 
wave-lengths,  thus  converting  interference 
into  coincidence , and  vice-versa,  just  as  the 
two  forks  might  chance  to  oscillate  either 
in  synchronism  or  in  alternation? 

It  is  also  plain  to  see  that  the  same  self- 
neutralization follows  us  into  the  supposed 
“interference”  of  the  double  siren,  claimed 
to  be  caused  alone  by  the  alternate  vibra- 
tions or  puffs  of  its  two  disks,  but  which 
has  already  been  shown  to  be  no  interfer- 
ence at  all,  being  simply  the  proper  and 
legitimate  mode  of  jumping  up  an  octave 
by  doubling  the  number  of  its  vibrations, 
as  any  sensible  siren  would  do  if  attempt- 
ing to  raise  its  pitch  an  octave  higher.  We 
have  only  now  to  bring  to  bear  upon  this 
phase  of  opposition  the  principle  of  inter- 
ference involved  in  the  idea  of  “half  wave- 
lengths” to  also  neutralize  its  neutraliza- 
tion! Let  us  just  see  how  scientifically 
and  logically  one  destroys  the  other,  the 
same  as  in  grammar  two  negatives  neutral- 
ize each  other  and  become  equivalent  to 
an  affirmative. 

Suppose  the  two  disks  of  the  double  siren 
(instead  of  being  placed  on  the  same  spin- 
dle one  above  the  other)  stationed  side  by 
side  51  inches  apart,  or  just  half  the  wave- 
length of  the  note  C,  which  requires  132 
vibrations  to  the  second,  making  a whole 
wave-length  102  inches,  and  suppose  the 
two  disks  so  geared  together  and  their 
supply-pipes  so  adjusted  as  to  puff  alter- 
nately. Of  course,  according  to  the  ex- 
planation given  by  Professors  Tyndall  and 
Helmholtz  the  two  disks  are  thus  in  a 
“phase  of  opposition,”  at  whatever  rate 
of  speed  they  may  revolve,  and  hence  their 


299 

puffs  must  neutralize  each  other  alone  by 
the  operation  of  one  disk  producing  a 
“condensation”  at  the  exact  time  the  other 
produces  a “rarefaction,”  or,  in  Professor 
Tyndall’s  own  words,  “In  fact,  the  conden- 
sations of  the  one  coincide  with  the  rare- 
factions of  the  other,  and  the  absolute  ex- 
tinction of  the  sounds  of  both  sirens  is  the  con- 
sequence"; and  that,  too,  remember, without 
the  least  intimation  as  to  what  distance 
the  two  sirens  are  to  be  separated,  or 
whether  there  is  to  be  any  distance  at  all 
between  them.  In  fact,  no  amount  of  dis- 
tance whatever  separating  the  two  disks 
could  by  any  possibility  enter  into  the  cal- 
culation of  this  mode  of  “interference,” 
since  these  physicists  teach  that  the  same 
phase  of  opposition  continues  as  the  speed 
of  rotation  increases  and  the  pitch  rises, 
which  would  cause  a constantly  varying 
“half  wave-length”  to  be  necessary  be- 
tween them,  if  any  such  thing  were  taken 
into  account.  Hence,  with  the  two  disks 
of  the  double  siren , the  “interference,”  the 
“phase  of  opposition,”  and  the  “absolute 
extinction,”  are  effected  exclusively  by 
puffing  alternately,  whatever  distance  they 
may  be  apart.  But  here  steps  in  the  other 
phase  of  this  suicidal  “law”  of  interfer- 
ence growing  out  of  the  “half  wave-length” 
theory,  and  vetoes  all  this  nonsense  about 
“alternation”;  for  the  moment  the  two 
disks  are  made  to  revolve  fast  enough  to 
generate  the  note  C,  it  is  manifest  that  the 
condensation  from  one  disk,  by  traveling 
half  a wave-length,  or  51  inches, will  reach 
the  other  disk  in  time  to  exactly  catch  or 
coalesce  with  its  condensation  just  starting, 
thus  producing  “ coincidence"  instead  of 
‘ interference ,”  and  thus  again  neutralizing 
Professor  Tyndall’s  neutralization  or  “ab- 
solute extinction”  by  producing  the  precise 
opposite  of  his  supposed  “phase  of  oppo- 
sition"! Was  ever  the  self-stultification  of 
a theory  more  beautifully  elucidated? 


300 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


We  thus  see  that  this  pivotal  “law”  of 
the  wave-theory,  as  explained  by  Professor 
Tyndall,  and  as  made  to  bear  upon  two 
separate  phases  of  his  hypothesis,  com- 
pletely neutralizes  itself;  and,  instead  of 
favoring  the  idea  that  sound  has  anything 
to  do  with  wave-motion,  the  assumption, 
by  this  strained  effort  to  frame  some  kind 
of  interference  between  imaginary  systems 
of  air-waves,  simply  results  in  the  over- 
throw of  the  current  sound-theory, by  prov- 
ing that  air-waves,  with  condensations  and 
rarefactions  as  the  basis  of  sound-propa- 
gation,have  no  existence  in  Nature, unless 
it  be  a purely  fanciful  existence  in  the 
imaginations  of  physicists.  This  demon- 
strative and  all-pervading  “law”  which  a 
moment  ago  seemed  so  efficiently  active 
in  favor  of  wave-motion, — producing  “in- 
terference” between  systems  of  undula- 
tions which  had  no  practical  existence, — 
and  which  was  so  flexibly  accommodating 
as  to  create  a “phase  of  opposition”  in 
almost  any  direction,  to  order,  has,  under 
cross-examination,  literally  broken  down 
the  whole  wave-theory  by  hopelessly  ar- 
raying the  most  conclusive  arguments  of 
these  physicists  against  themselves. 

If  Professor  Tyndall  could  succeed  half 
as  well  in  establishing  “mutual  destruc- 
tion” between  two  systems  of  sound-waves 
under  the  action  of  this  so-called  law  of 
interference  as  he  has  done  in  producing 
a “phase  of  opposition”  and  “neutraliza- 
tion” between  his  most  powerful  argu- 
ments, he  would  have  succeeded  at  least 
a score  of  times  in  rendering  the  wave- 
hypothesis  invincible,  as  the  foregoing 
pages  amply  illustrate. 

But  I have  another  and  still  more  start- 
ling proof  of  the  self-neutralizing  effects 
of  this  supposed  law  of  “interference”  be- 
tween the  condensations  of  one  system  of 
waves  and  the  rarefactions  of  another.  To 
demonstrate  the  complete  self-destruction 


of  the  principle  involved,  we  need  go  no 
further  than  to  Professor  Tyndall’s  own 
reiterated  description  of  the  manner  in 
which  these  “condensations”  and  “rare- 
factions” are  generated  and  sent  off  from 
a tuning-fork  or  harp-string,  and  then  look 
at  the  legitimate  result  of  such  generation 
and  propagation. 

Each  fork  or  string,  according  to  these 
explanations,  produces  two  distinct  systems 
of  sound-waves , one  system  being  sent  off 
from  one  side  of  the  fork  or  string,  and 
another  system  being  at  the  same  time 
sent  off  from  the  other  side,  the  same  mo- 
tion producing  a rarefaction  on  one  side  and 
a condensation  on  the  other, and  each  system 
being  constituted  of  the  same  kind  of 
“condensations  and  rarefactions.”  Ob- 
serve the  conciseness  and  unmistakable 
character  of  his  language: — 

“ Imagine  one  of  the  prongs  of  the  vibrating  fork 
swiftly  advancing;  it  compresses  the  air  immediately 
in  front  of  it,  and  when  it  retreats  it  leaves  a partial 
vacuum  behind.” — Lectures  on  Sound , p.  62. 

Of  course,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
fork  the  same  thing  takes  place  pre- 
cisely, the  other  prong  sending  off  the 
same  kind  of  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions in  the  opposite  direction.  This  no 
one  will  pretend  to  dispute.  Now,  would 
it  not  be  a surprise  to  Professor  Tyndall, 
and  to  physicists  generally,  if  it  could  be 
shown  from  this  language  that  these  two 
systems  of  waves,  sent  off  from  the  two 
opposite  sides  of  the  fork, must  necessarily 
interfere  and  neutralize  each  other,  thus 
producing  “absolute  silence”  according  to 
the  wave-theory?  I will  here  undertake 
to  demonstrate,  to  the  satisfaction  of  any 
one  who  will  attentively  read  this  short 
argument,  that  two  such  systems  of  waves 
must  n e c e s s a r i 1 y ////WyV; r, a n d hence  should 
result  in  “absolute  silence,”  if  there  is  the 
least  foundation  for  the  theory  of  wave- 
motion  in  the  propagation  of  sound.  But 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


301 


first  notice  the  equally  explicit  teaching 
of  this  same  high  authority  in  regard  to 
the  vibration  of  a single  harp-string, which 
is  much  less  difficult  to  comprehend  than 
the  somewhat  complex  operation  of  the 
two  prongs  of  a tuning-fork: — 

“ Figure  clearly  to  your  minds  a harp-siring  vi- 
brating to  ami  fro;  it  advances , and  causes  the  par- 
ticles of  air  in  front  of  it  to  crowd  together,  thus 
causing  a condensation  of  the  air.  It  retreats,  and 
the  air-particles  behind  it  separate  tnore  widely,  thus 
producing  a rarefaction  of  the  air.” — Heat  as  a 
Mode  of  Motion,  p.  372. 

It  is  plain  to  see  from  this  language  that 
both  the  “condensation”  and  the  “rare- 
faction” here  named  are  generated  and 
propagated  by  this  “to  and  fro”  motion 
on  one  side  the  string  only , and  we  have  then 
only  to  “figure”  another  system  of  the 
same  kind  of  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions, generated  in  the  same  way,  and  sent 
off  from  the  other  side  of  the  string,  and 
then  ask,  What  takes  place  directly  above  the 
string?  Ah,  that’s  the  rub!  Professor 
Tyndall  never  thought  to  explain  this 
missing  link  in  his  favorite  theory  of  con- 
densations and  rarefactions.  He  could 
think  far  enough  ahead  to  elucidate,  as 
he  did  with  the  row  of  glass  balls,  the 
carving  and  moulding  of  waves  on  one  side 
of  the  string,  and  their  propagation  in  a 
straight  line,  but,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
glass  balls,  he  makes  no  provision  for  the 
air-particles  slipping  up  or  down,  to  the 
right  hand  or  to  the  left.  There  being  no 
motion  of  the  harp-string  “to  and  fro”  in 
a vertical  direction,  of  course  there  can  be 
no  crowding  of  the  air-particles  together  as 
it  advances,  nor  separating  more  widely  as 
it  retreats;  hence,  no  condensations  nor 
rarefactions  up  and  down, and  consequently 
no  sound-waves, since  sound  can  only  exist 
and  be  heard  as  such  condensed  and  rare- 
fied waves. 

Hence,  it  follows  that  no  sound  should 
be  heard  above  the  string  at  all,  according 


to  the  wave-theory,  since  there  is  no  ad- 
vancing nor  retreating  in  that  direction  to 
carve  and  mould  the  required  condensa- 
tions and  rarefactions.  Is  it  not,  there- 
fore, the  legitimate  teaching  of  Professor 
Tyndall,  and  also  of  the  wave-theory,  of 
which  he  is  the  most  popular  exponent, 
that  the  sound  of  a harp-string  should  not 
and  can  not  be  heard  above  the  string  at 
all,  since  there  is  no  motion  to  and  fro  in 
that  direction?  This  must  be  clearly  the 
doctrine  of  the  theory,  since  without  mo- 
tion there  can  be  no  “ condensation  of  the 
air,”  and  without  condensation  there  can 
be  no  air-wave , and  without  air-waves 
there  can  be  no  sound! 

But  here  Nature  steps  in,  as  usual,  and 
contradicts  the  unavoidable  logic  of  the 
wave-theory,  since  it  is  well  known  to 
every  observer  that  sound  is  heard  in  a 
vertical  direction,  or  directly  above  the 
string,  just  as  intensely  and  at  as  great  a 
distance  as  horizontally, or  in  the  direction 
the  string  oscillates, — which  simply  annihi- 
lates the  assumption  that  sound  is  in  any  way 
connected  with  such  supposed  condensations 
and  rarefactions,  ox  that  they  are  necessary 
for  its  existence. 

Now,  the  only  possible  answer  to  this 
difficulty  is  that  the  lateral  or  horizontal 
air- waves,  as  they  are  sent  off  from  the 
string,  re-act  and  reflect  upward,  thus  con- 
veying their  condensations  and  rarefac- 
tions to  the  regions  of  air  above  the  string 
as  well  as  in  a horizontal  direction,  the 
row  of  glass  balls  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. But  here  is  exactly  where  “in- 
terference” and  self-neutralization  come 
in,  as  promised  a moment  ago,  and  which 
I will  now  make  good. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  conden- 
sation on  one  side  of  the  string  is  gener- 
ated and  sent  off  by  the  very  identical 
motion  which  generates  and  sends  off  the 
rarefaction  on  the  other  side  of  the  string, 


302 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  at  exactly  the  same  instant  of  time; 
so  that,  according  to  the  theory  of  “inter- 
ference” by  half  wave-lengths,  recently 
reviewed,  the  rarefaction  on  one  side  of 
the  string  would  re-act  and  reflect  upward 
a given  distance,  just  in  time  to  coalesce 
with  the  condensation  from  the  other  side, 
since  they  occur  synchronously,  and  both 
travel  with  the  same  velocity,  of  course; 
and  hence  the  two  systems  of  waves  from 
the  two  sides  of  the  string  must  necessarily 
produce  complete  interference  and  cause 
“absolute  silence”  in  a vertical  direction, 
if  there  is  the  shadow  of  truth  in  the  wave- 
theory!  Thus,  every  way  it  can  be  pre- 
sented, it  is  proved  to  be  a monstrous  self- 
contradiction,  unworthy  of  a moment’s 
serious  attention  by  any  well-informed 
physicist,  except  so  far  as  to  expose  its 
superficiality  and  overthrow  its  claims  as 
a scientific  hypothesis. 

I now  invite  the  attention  of  the  reader 
quite  briefly  to  the  question  of  musical 
“beats,”  with  which  most  musicians  are 
familiar,  especially  those  accustomed  to 
tuning  instruments.  They  occur  when 
two  sounding  bodies  are  slightly  out  of 
unison,  and  consist  of  a sensible  increase 
of  intensity,  followed  by  a decrease  almost 
to  inaudibility.  These  swellings  and  sink- 
ings of  the  tone  occur  once  for  each  com- 
plete vibration  difference  in  a given  time 
between  any  two  sounding  bodies.  In 
other  words,  if  the  vibrational  numbers  of 
two  tuning-forks,  for  example,  are  respect- 
ively 256  and  257  per  second,  there  would 
be  but  one  beat  per  second.  If  the  differ- 
ence between  them  should  be  two  com- 
plete vibrations  in  a second,  there  would 
be  two  beats.  If  there  was  a difference 
of  only  one  vibration  in  five  seconds,  there 
would  be,  of  course,  but  one  beat  or  one 
sinking  and  swelling  of  the  tone  in  five 
seconds,  and  so  on.  This  is  all  the  expla- 
nation needed,  even  by  the  unscientific 


reader, as  to  what  beats  are,  and  the  cause 
of  their  number  of  recurrences  in  a given 
time. 

The  important  question,  however,  which 
now  concerns  us,  and  which  has  puzzled 
physicists  in  all  ages,  from  the  time  of 
Pythagoras  to  the  present,  is  the  true  phys- 
ical solution  of  these  phenomena.  We 
know,  for  example,  that  beats  are  pro- 
duced by  the  difference  in  the  vibrational 
rate  of  the  two  sounding  bodies,  and  con- 
sequently by  such  sounding  bodies  being 
brought  alternately  into  a relation  of  co- 
incidence and  opposition.  But  in  what 
manner,  or  on  what  acoustical  principle, 
does  this  change  from  coincidence  to  op- 
position between  such  instruments  gener- 
ate this  successive  increase  and  diminu- 
tion in  the  intensity  of  the  tone?  On  gen- 
eral principles,  and  as  a matter  of  course, 
it  is  attributed  by  advocates  of  the  current 
sound-theory  to  the  interference  of  the  two 
systems  of  air-waves  sent  off  by  the  two 
beating  instruments,  though  in  what  man- 
ner it  is  possible  for  two  systems  of  hypo- 
thetic air-waves  to  interfere  so  as  to  pro- 
duce this  alternate  sinking  and  swelling 
can  not  be  made  intelligible  to  an  unsci- 
entific mind,  or  even  to  the  advocates  of 
the  wave-theory,  since,  as  just  shown,  the 
supposed  coalescence  of  condensations 
and  rarefactions  amounts  to  nothing  at  all, 
by  absolute  trial,  producing  not  the  slight- 
est effect  when  two  instruments  are  placed 
half  a wave-length  apart;  while  the  whole 
assumption  is  shown  to  be  completely  self- 
neutralizing whenever  this  supposed  inter- 
ference is  combined  with  the  same  inter- 
ference caused  by  the  alternate  puffing  of 
the  double  siren. 

That  two  systems  of  air-waves , if  they 
exist  at  all  as  the  means  of  sound-propa- 
gation, can  not  interfere  so  as  to  affect  the 
intensity  of  sound  in  the  slightest  degree, 
Professor  Tyndall  tacitly  admits  in  the 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


303 


passage  recently  quoted.  “When  several 
sounds ,”  he  says,  “ traverse  the  same  air , 
each  particular  sound  passes  through  the  air 
as  if  it  alone  7 vere  present" ; whereas,  if  the 
current  theory  of  “interference,”  or  the 
mutual  destruction  of  sound  by  opposing 
air-waves,  was  true,  as  taught  by  physicists, 
any  two  sounds  of  the  same  pitch  and  in- 
tensity traveling  together  would  be  just  as 
apt  to  travel  in  interference  and  cause  ab- 
solute silence  as  to  coincide  and  be  heard, 
the  chances  of  course  being  equal.  This 
has  been  repeatedly  urged,  and  in  various 
ways,  as  a self-evident  fact  which  must 
alone  be  sufficient  to  break  down  all  this 
reasoning  about  the  interference  of  sup- 
posititious air-waves,  and  of  itself  proves 
that  beats  are  in  no  way  connected  with 
any  such  “phase  of  opposition.”  If  such 
interference  between  air-waves  were  pos- 
sible, then,  clearly,  the  language  quoted 
above,  from  Professor  Tyndall,  could  not 
be  true.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the 
true  cause  of  beats,  -it  is  clear  that  the  in- 
terference of  air-waves  has  nothing  to  do 
with  them. 

Besides,  it  must  be  clearly  manifest  to 
the  reader  who  has  attentively  perused 
the  preceding  arguments,  that  air-waves 
as  the  means  of  sound-propagation  have 
no  existence  in  fact, but  are  purely  chimer- 
ical, being  based  on  a complete  misappre- 
hension of  the  physical  laws.  This  has 
been  shown  in  so  many  ways  that  it  is  un- 
necessary to  specify  any  particular  class 
of  arguments  bearing  against  the  hypoth- 
esis, since  almost  any  one  of  the  preceding 
two  hundred  or  more  pages,  if  opened  to 
at  random,  will  show  facts  and  reasons 
against  such  a supposition  which  must 
convince  an  unbiassed  scientist  that  air- 
waves are  utterly  inadequate  to  account 
for  the  phenomena  of  sound. 

If,  then,  the  scope  and  logical  bearing 
of  the  arguments  advanced  in  this  mono-  | 


graph  unanswerably  disprove  air-waves  as 
the  cause  of  sonorous  propagation,  it  is 
folly  to  claim  that  these  alternate  sinkings 
and  swellings  of  sound,  as  observed  in 
beats,  come  from  the  interference  of  that 
which  has  no  existence  in  fact. 

It  is  the  explicit  teaching  of  every  writer 
on  sound,  as  all  well-informed  students  of 
acoustics  are  aware,  that  the  loudness  or 
intensity  of  tone  results  alone  from  the 
swinging  to  and  fro  of  the  air-particles, 
with  greater  or  less  amplitude,  as  they 
strike  the  tympanic  membrane,  hitting  it 
with  a harder  or  a lighter  blow;  and  hence 
that  the  sinking  or  swelling  of  a sound,  as 
in  beats,  takes  place  at  the  ear  of  the  listener 
by  this  motion  of  the  air-particles.  Accord- 
ing to  this  universal  teaching, it  is  not  pro- 
duced directly  in  the  action  or  condition 
of  the  two  instruments  themselves,  except 
so  far  as  they  act  to  mould  and  send  off 
the  waves  of  air,  but  is  caused  by  the  in- 
terference or  coincidence  of  the  air-waves 
themselves,  after  they  leave  the  sound- 
producing  bodies.  I will  refer  to  a few 
brief  passages  to  refresh  the  memory  of 
the  reader.  Professor  Helmholtz  says: — 

“A  periodically  oscillating  sonorous  body  pro- 
duces a similar  periodical  motion,  first  in  the  mass 
of  air,  and  then  in  the  drum  of  our  ear." — Sensa- 
tions of  Tone,  p.  16. 

Professor  Mayer  teaches  the  same 
thing: — 

“It  is  evident  that  the  ultimate  effect  of  the  pas- 
sage of  sonorous  waves  through  the  atmosphere 
■will  be  to  cause  the  molecules  of  the  air  to  swing  to 
and  fro  with  the  motions  of petidulums.  It  is  also 
apparent  that  all  the  characteristics  of  the  periodic 
motion  at  the  source  of  the  sound  will  be  impressed 
on  the  surrounding  air,  and  transmitted  through  it 
to  a distance." — Am.  Ency.,  Art.  on  "Sound.” 

Professor  Tyndall  is  even  more  explicit, 
if  anything,  on  this  subject.  He  says: — 

"The  greater  volume  of  sound  heard  everywhere 
throughout  the  room  can  only  be  due  to  the  greater 
amount  of  motion  communicated  to  the  air  of  the 
room." 


304 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


“We  have  already  learned  that  what  is  loudness 
in  our  sensations,  is,  Outside  of  us,  nothing  more 
than  width  of  swing  or  amplitude  of  the  vibrating 
air-particles.  ” [“ Nothing  more”  excludes  the  sound- 
ing body  itself  as  having  any  direct  connection  with 
this  increase  or  diminution  of  sound,  except  as  the 
mechanical  means  of  sending  off  the  air-waves!] 

“The  pitch  of  a note  depends  solely  on  the  num- 
ber of  aerial  i waves  which  strike  the  ear  in  a second. 
The  loudness  or  intensity  of  a note  depends  on  the 
distance  within  which  the  separate  atoms  of  the  air 
vibrate.  This  distance  is  called  the  amplitude  of 
the  vibration .” — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  48,  73. — 
Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion,  pp.  225,  372. 

In  another  place  Professor  Tyndall  dis- 
tinctly says  that  if  we  hear  one  sound  louder 
than  another  \t  is  because  the  ear  is  “hit 
harder”  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other 
by  the  vibrating  air-particles  (. Lectures  on 
Sound,  p.  11).  It  is  therefore  easy  to  see 
that  the  sinking  and  swelling  of  the  sounds 
of  two  beating  instruments  result  “alone,” 
according  to  the  wave-theory,  from  the  al- 
ternate coincidence  or  interference  of  the 
air-waves  themselves  sent  off  from  such 
sounding  bodies.  I deny  that  this  is  any 
explanation  at  all  of  musical  beats,  as  it 
has  been  clearly  shown  a few  pages  back 
that  no  such  interference  between  two 
supposed  systems  of  air-waves  can  take 
place,  since  not  the  slightest  weakening 
of  two  unison  tones  occurs  when  two  vi- 
brating bodies  are  sounded  half  a wave- 
length apart, — the  position  which,  above 
all  others,  admittedly  meets  this  condition, 
and  causes  the  condensations  of  the  one 
system  to  exactly  coalesce  with  the  rare- 
factions of  the  other,  if  any  such  systems 
exist.  Hence,  this  so-called  “amplitude” 
or  “width  of  swing”  of  the  air-particles  in 
the  propagation  of  sound,  in  which  they 
are  said  to  oscillate  “to  and  fro  with  the 
motions  of  pendulums,”  and  to  “shake  the 
drum  of  the  distant  ear,”  is  demonstrated 
to  have  no  actual  existence  in  Nature. 

To  show  that  “beats”  are  directly 
caused,  according  to  the  current  theory  of 


sound,  by  this  alternate  interference  and 
coincidence  of  supposed  condensations  and 
rarefactions  sent  off  in  the  form  of  waves, 
as  the  two  beating  forks  oppose  or  re-enforce 
each  other,  I will  quote  Professor  Tyndall’s 
very  clear  and  concise  explanation  of  these 
phenomena, according  to  the  received  view 
of  sonorous  propagation.  I will,  however, 
first  let  him  explain  to  the  reader  how  these 
“condensations”  and  “rarefactions”  from 
two  unison  forks,  by  interfering , may 
“abolish  the  sounds  of  both”: — 

“I  draw  my  bow  across  a tuning-fork,  which  for 
distinction’s  sake  I will  call  A,  and  cause  it  to  send 
a series  of  sonorous  waves  through  the  air.  I now 
place  a second  fork,  B,  behind  the  first,  and  throw 
it  also  into  vibration.  From  B waves  issue  which 
pass  through  the  air  already  traversed  by  the  waves 
from  A.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  forks  may  so  vi- 
brate that  the  condensations  of  the  one  shall  coincide 
with  the  condensations  of  the  other,  and  the  rarefac- 
tions of  the  one  with  the  rarefactions  of  the  other. 
If  this  be  the  case,  the  two  forks  will  assist  each 
other.  The  condensations  will,  in  fact,  become  more 
condensed,  the  rarefactions  more  rarefied,  and  as  it 
is  upon  the  difference  of  density  between  the  conden- 
sations and  rarefactions  that  loudness  depends,  the 
two  vibrating  forks  thus  supporting  each  other  will 
produce  a sound  of  greater  intensity  than  that  of 
either  of  them  vibrating  alone.  It  is,  however,  also 
easy  to  see  that  the  two  forks  may  be  so  related  to 
each  other  that  one  of  them  shall  require  a con- 
densation at  the  place  where  the  other  requires  a 
rarefaction;  that  one  fork,  for  example,  shall  urge 
the  air-particles  forward  [“ swiftly  advancing ”] 
while  the  other  urges  them  backward  [retreating  and 
“leaving  a partial  vacuum ”].  If  the  opposing 
forces  be  equal,  particles  so  solicited  will  move 
neither  backwards  nor  forwards,  and  the  aerial  rest 
which  corresponds  to  silence  is  the  result.  Thus  it 
is  possible  by  adding  the  sound  of  one  fork  to  that 
of  another  to  abolish  the  sounds  of  both.” — Lectures 
on  Sound,  p.  258. 

Here,  then,  as  before  stated,  the  cause 
of  silence  is  the  “interference”  of  the  two 
systems  of  air-waves  sent  off  from  the  two 
unison  forks  traveling  in  such  relation  to 
each  other  that  the  condensations  of  one 
system  coalesce  with  the  rarefactions  of 
the  other,  thus  tending  to  “abolish  the 


CiiAr.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


305 


sounds  of  both.”  Silence,  in  this  case,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  alternate  vibration 
of  the  two  forks,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
so-called  interference  produced  by  the 
double  siren!  We  will  now  let  this  lecturer 
tell  us  how  to  manipulate  the  two  unison 
forks  so  as  to  make  one  vibrate  a trifle 
slower  than  the  other,  and  thus  generate 
the  “beats”  of  which  we  are  seeking  an 
explanation.  The  reader  will  carefully 
note  that  the  alternate  swellings  and  weak- 
enings of  the  tones  of  the  beating  forks,  as 
here  described,  are  explicitly  attributed, 
all  the  way  through,  to  the  alternate  coin- 
cidence and  interference  of  the  condensations 
and  rarefactions  of  the  air-waves : — • 

“Each  of  the  two  forks  now  before  you  executes 
exactly  256  vibrations  in  a second,  and  when  they 
are  sounded  together  you  have  the  perfect  flow  of 
unison.  I now  load  one  of  them  with  a bit  of  wax, 
thus  causing  it  to  vibrate  a little  more  slowly  than 
its  neighbor.  Supposing,  for  the  sake  of  simplicity, 
that  the  wax  reduces  the  number  of  vibrations  to 
255  in  a second,  what  must  occur  when  the  two 
forks  are  sounded  together?  If  they  start  at  the 
same  moment , condensation  coinciding  -with  conden- 
sation and  rarefaction  with  rarefaction , it  is  quite 
manifest  that  this  state  of  things  can  not  continue. 
The  two  forks  soon  begin  to  exert  opposite  actions 
on  the  surrounding  air.  At  the  128th  vibration 
their  phases  are  in  complete  opposition,  one  of  them 
having  gained  half  a vibration  on  the  other.  Here 
the  one  fork  generates  a condensation  where  the 
other  generates  a rarefaction;  and  the  consequence 
is  that  the  two  forks,  at  this  particular  point,  com- 
pletely neutralize  each  other,  and  we  have  no  sound. 
From  this  point  onward,  however,  the  forks  support 
each  other  more  and  more,  until,  at  the  end  of  a 
second,  when  the  one  has  completed  its  255th  and 
the  other  its  256th  vibration,  the  state  of  things  is 
what  was  at  the  commencement.  Condensation 
then  coincides  with  condensation  and  rarefaction 
with  rarefaction,  the  full  effects  of  both  sounds 
being  produced  upon  the  ear.  ...  It  is  quite  man- 
ifest, that  under  these  circumstances  we  can  not 
have  the  continuous  flow  of  perfect  unison.  We 
have,  on  the  contrary,  alternate  re-enforcements  and 
diminutions  of  the  sound.  We  obtain,  in  fact,  the 
effect  known  to  musicians  by  the  name  of  'beats,' 
which,  as  here  explained,  are  a result  of  interfer- 
ence."— Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  262. 


Thus,  consistently,  all  the  way  through 
the  wave-theory,  these  authorities  explain 
beats  as  the  alternate  interference  and  coin- 
cidence of  the  condensations  and  rarefactions 
of  air-waves  after  they  have  been  gener- 
ated and  sent  off  from  the  fork,  and  that 
when  the  weakening  of  the  tone  occurs  it 
takes  place  alone  because  the  tympanic 
membrane  is  not  “hit”  so  hard  by  the  os- 
cillating air  as  when  the  tone  is  louder. 

To  make  sure  that  the  reader  shall  com- 
prehend this  pivotal  fact  of  my  argument, 
namely,  that  “beats”  occur  alone  by  the 
alternate  motion  and  quiescence  of  the 
air-particles,  I will  make  one  other  refer- 
ence to  Professor  Tyndall’s  explanation. 
He  says: — 

“In  the  case  of  beats  the  amplitude  of  the  oscil- 
lating air  reaches  a maximum  and  a minimum  pe- 
riodically’. . . . Its  particles  alternately  vibrate  and 
come  to  rest.” — Lectures  on  Sound,  pp.  266,  268. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this  explanation 
of  beats,  I maintain  that  the  operation 
which  alternately  augments  and  diminishes 
the  intensity  of  tone,  as  the  oscillations  of 
the  two  forks  cross  each  other’s  path  in 
changing  from  synchronous  to  alternate 
vibration,  has  nothing  to  do  with  air-waves 
or  any  motion  of  the  air-particles  what- 
ever,but  takes  place  in  the  instruments  them- 
selves,or  in  their  potential  and  practical  sym- 
pathetic attraction  for  each  other , without 
regard  to  the  coincidence  or  interference  of 
such  useless  nonentities  as  these  so-called 
atmospheric  condensations  and  rarefactions. 
I claim  that  the  simple  laws  of  acoustics, 
as  applied  by  the  consistent  principles  of 
the  corpuscular  hypothesis,  which  have 
thrown  light  on  so  many  mysterious  phe- 
nomena and  elucidated  so  many  difficult 
questions  during  the  preceding  discussion, 
will  be  found  amply  sufficient,  when  prop- 
erly investigated  and  analyzed,  to  clear  up 
this  occult  problem  of  “beats”  on  the 
general  law  of  sympathetic  vibration. 


3°6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


At  pages  79,  80,  &c.,  I endeavored  to 
show  that  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  a fork 
or  string,  when  its  unison  was  sounded 
near  it,  could  not,  by  any  rational  possi- 
bility, be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition 
of  the  synchronous  dashing  of  air-waves 
against  it,  as  the  wave-theory  necessarily 
assumes,  and  gave  what  I consider  good 
and  sufficient  reasons  for  rejecting  such 
an  hypothesis,  even  if  no  arguments  had 
since  been  advanced  showing  that  such 
atmospheric  sound-waves  have  no  real  ex- 
istence in  Nature.  I assumed,  as  the  only 
consistent  view,  that  there  exists  poten- 
tially, in  all  bodies  capable  of  producing 
a musical  sound, an  affinity  or  sympathetic 
attraction  for  all  other  bodies  capable  of 
such  sonorous  effects,  the  same  as  there 
exists  potentially  in  a piece  of  steel  a mag- 
netic sympathy  for  all  other  bodies  of  steel, 
and  that  it  only  requires  that  mysterious 
electric  condition  which  we  designate  as 
magnetic , to  cause  such  unison  steel  bodies 
to  either  attract  or  repel  each  other,  ac- 
cording to  the  manner  in  which  their 
magnetic  currents  of  substantial  but  intan- 
gible corpuscles  synchronize  or  cross  each 
other’s  path.  In  an  analogous  manner,  a 
sounding  body  only  needs  to  be  tensioned 
to  that  rigidity  which  develops  a unison 
relation  to  other  bodies  of  like  sonorous 
rigidity,  to  raise  its  potential  affinity  into 
a practical  sympathetic  attraction,  and  by 
which  means  its  potential  or  dormant 
sonorous  pulses  are  taken  hold  of  by  the 
corresponding  pulses  of  its  unison  neigh- 
bor, which  gradually  cause  it  to  awaken 
into  a similar  sonorous  action.  And  in  a 
manner  very  analogous  to  this  principle 
of  magnetic  repulsion,  when  the  relation 
of  polarity  is  reversed  so  that  the  substan- 
tial magnetic  currents  oppose  each  other, 
two  forks  or  other  sounding  bodies,  if  made 
to  vibrate  in  such  a manner  as  to  be  thrown 
periodically  into  and  out  of  unison,  by  os- 


cillating first  together  and  then  in  opposite 
directions,  may  alternately  attract  and  re- 
pel, sympathize  and  conflict,  re-enforce 
and  oppose,  each  other,  by  the  coalescence 
or  interference  of  their  substantial  corpus- 
cles acting  upon  each  other’s  sonorous 
potentiality, quite  similar  to  such  magnetic 
action. 

I will  not  pretend  here  to  enter  into  the 
minutia  of  this  hypothesis,  which,  it  seems 
to  me,  will,  when  properly  elaborated,  fully 
explain  the  phenomena  of  beats  on  the 
principles  of  the  alternate  re-enforcement 
of,  or  interference  with,  this  sonorous 
affinity  or  sympathetic  attraction  between 
two  musical  instruments,  and  which  will, 
as  I believe, prove  to  physicists  much  more 
satisfactory  than  the  superficial  and  illy 
considered  supposition  of  air-waves.  I 
simply  throw  out  the  general  suggestion 
of  this  law  of  sympathetic  attraction  as 
the  rational  basis  of  a solution,  to  show 
the  reader  that  this  problem  of  beats,  as 
one  of  the  most  relied-on  arguments  of 
physicists  in  favor  of  some  kind  of  inter- 
ference between  air-waves,  is  no  exception 
to  the  general  rule  that  such  assumed 
“phase  of  opposition”  is  as  useless  as  it 
is  impracticable,  and  as  foundationless  as 
the  air-waves  on  which  it  depends. 

I will  only  present  a single  argument  to 
show,  as  I believe,  conclusively,  that  the 
action  and  force  which  produce  beats  are 
to  be  traced  to  the  instruments  themselves, 
and  their  influence  upon  each  other,  and 
need  not  be  carried  a single  inch  away  to 
accommodate  this  superficial  hypothesis 
of  interfering  air-waves.  Suppose,  for  ex- 
ample, two  forks  mounted  upon  their  reso- 
nant cases  and  tuned  sufficiently  out  of 
unison  to  produce,  say,  one  beat  to  the 
second.  If  sounded  in  close  proximity  tb 
each  other,  or,  as  my  hypothesis  teaches, 
in  a position  of  strong  sympathetic  attrac- 
tion, a listener  stationed  a hundred  feet 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


307 


away  from  them  will  distinctly  hear  their 
beats, — will,  in  fact,  hear  them  as  far  away 
as  the  sounds  of  the  forks  are  audible. 
But  let  the  two  forks,  while  sounding,  be 
gently  separated  only  a few  feet  toward 
the  right  and  left  of  the  listener, and  though 
he  will  continue  toffiear  their  united  sounds 
in  full  force,  yet  the  beats  will  entirely 
cease,  showing  that  they  result  from  the 
sympathetic  influence  of  the  two  forks 
upon  each  other,  owing  to  their  affinity, 
and  not  to  the  alternate  interference  and 
coincidence  of  the  two  systems  of  supposed 
air-waves  a hundred  feet  away,  or  at  the 
ear  of  the  distant  observer,  as  the  wave- 
theory  teaches. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  two  systems 
of  air-waves  from  two  beating  forks,  if  such 
waves  exist  at  all  as  the  cause  of  sound, 
must  travel  to  the  distant  observer  exactly 
in  the  same  relation  to  each  other  (as  to 
coincidence  or  interference)  when  the 
forks  are  slightly  separated  to  the  right 
and  left,  remaining  equidistant  from  him, 
as  when  their  resonant  cases  are  in  such 
close  juxtaposition  as  to  actually  touch 
each  other.  Yet,  in  the  former  case,  when 
not  in  close  sympathetic  proximity,  the 
sounds  are  as  perfectly  smooth  and  mellow 
as  if  they  flowed  from  two  forks  in  abso- 
lute unison ; while  in  the  latter  case,  when 
in  close  sympathetic  union,  the  beats  can 
be  distinctly  heard,  as  before  remarked, 
to  the  extreme  limit  of  audibility.  Need 
there  be  any  stronger  argument  required 
to  show  that  the  alternate  coincidence  and 
interference  of  hypothetic  air-waves  are 
in  no  way  whatever  connected  with  the 
cause  of  sonorous  beats?  And  need  there 
be  another  argument  adduced  to  show 
that  the  true  cause  of  these  phenomena 
lies,  as  here  postulated,  in  the  influence  of 
the  two  instruments  upon  each  other 
through  this  law  of  sympathetic  attraction, 
as  required  by  the  corpuscular  hypothesis? 


Following  the  lead  of  this  assumed  “in- 
terference,” we  would  naturally  expect  it 
to  finally  culminate  in  something  like  direct 
evidence  of  its  existence,  if  it  really  has 
any  such  foundation  in  fact  or  science?  It 
would  be  very  strange,  indeed,  if  an  im- 
portant “law”  in  physics,  lying  at  the  very 
basis  of  a scientific  theory,  and  involving 
such  an  unmistakable  condition  of  things 
as  the  occurrence  of  “ absolute  silence"  be- 
tween two  loudly  sounding  instruments  by 
the  interference  of  their  air-waves,  should 
not  be  susceptible  of  some  sort  of  demon- 
strative proof  which  appealed  directly  to 
the  auditory  sense,  instead  of  depending 
on  mere  theoretical  inferences,  which 
might  vanish  into  thin  air  the  moment  we 
attempt  to  practically  test  them,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  assumed  interference 
between  two  unison  forks  sounding  half  a 
wave-length  apart,  recently  examined. 

In  our  search  after  something  practical 
and  tangible  of  this  sort,  we  have  at  last 
found  it,  in  the  shape  of  an  acoustical 
apparatus  manufactured  by  M.  Konig,  of 
Paris.  This  ingeniously  constructed  in- 
strument is  intended  to  squarely  meet  the 
difficulty  by  dividing  a stream  of  sound 
into  two  unequal  branches,  one  being  half 
a wave-length  longer  than  the  other,  and 
then  re-uniting  them  in  a common  outlet, 
where  they  must  naturally  be  expected  to 
interfere  by  the  condensations  of  one  of  the 
systems  of  waves  coalescing  with  the  rare- 
factions of  the  other,  thus  producing  the 
long  sought  for  “absolute  silence”  so  es- 
sential to  this  “law,”  and  so  indispensable 
to  the  wave-theory  of  sound  as  a scientific 
hypothesis. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  a conclu- 
sive proof  of  the  current  hypothesis  of 
wave-motion  as  this  would  be,  if  founded 
on  fact,  would  naturally  receive  consider- 
able prominence  in  Professor  Tyndall’s 
book,  as  it  certainly  does.  Before  making 


3°8 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


any  further  remarks  in  Regard  to  the  ap- 
paratus or  its  acoustical  effects,  I will  take 
the  liberty  of  transferring  bodily  to  these 
pages  the  engraving  and  explanation,  as 
given  by  this  author,  and  earnestly  re- 
quest the  reader  to  carefully  examine  the 
same : — 

“ Sir  John  Herschel  first  proposed  to  divide  a 
stream  of  sound  into  two  branches,  of  different 
lengths,  causing  the  branches  afterwards  to  re-unite, 
and  to  interfere  with  each  other.  This  idea  has 
been  recently  followed  out  with  success  by  M. 
Quincke ; and  it  has  been  still  further  improved 
upon  by  M.  Konig.  The  principle  of  these  experi- 
ments will  be  at  once  evident  from  Fig.  141.  The 
tube  o f divides  into  two  branches  at  f , the  one 
branch  being  carried  round  n,  and  the  other  round 


m.  The  two  branches  are  caused  to  re-unite  at  g, 
and  to  end  in  a common  canal,  g p.  The  portion, 
b u,  of  the  tube  which  slides  over  a b can  be  drawn 
out  as  shown  in  the  figure,  and  thus  the  sound-waves 
can  be  caused  to  pass  over  different  distances  in  the 
two  branches.  Placing  a vibrating  tuning-fork  at  o, 
and  the  ear  at  p , when  the  two  branches  are  of  the 
same  length,  the  waves  through  both  reach  the  ear 
together,  and  the  sound  of  the  fork  is  heard.  Draw- 
ing a b out,  a point  is  at  length  attained  where  the 
sound  of  the  fork  is  extinguished.  This  occurs 
when  the  distance  a b is  one  fourth  of  a wave-length; 
or,  in  other  words,  when  the  whole  right-hand 
branch  is  half  a wave-length  longer  than  the  left- 
hand  one.  Drawing  b n still  further  out,  the  sound 
is  again  heard ; and  when  twice  the  distance  a b 
amounts  to  a whole  wave-length,  it  reaches  a maxi- 
mum. Thus,  according  as  the  difference  of  both 
branches  amounts  to  half  a w'ave-length  or  to  a 
whole  wave-length,  w'e  have  interference  or  coinci- 
dence of  the  two  series  of  sonorous  waves.  In  prac- 


)  . 


tice,  the  tube  0 f ought  to  be  prolonged  till  the  direct 
sound  of  the  fork  is  unheard,  the  attention  of  the 
ear  being  then  wholly  concentrated  on  the  sounds 
that  reach  it  through  the  tube.” — Led. Sound, p.261. 


After  it  had  fallen  to  my  lot  to  discover 
so  many  inaccuracies,  and,  it  maybe  justly 
said,  inexcusable  mistakes,  in  the  scientific 
observations  and  experiments  of  this  phys- 
icist, it  was  quite  natural  that  I should  be 
inclined  to  discount  in  advance  this  entire 
statement  in  regard  to  the  Konig  instru- 
ment. It  was  plainly  evident  to  my  mind, 
if  the  apparatus  and  its  acoustical  effects 
were  correctly  described  they  would 
strongly  favor  the  wave-theory,  and  would 
present  an  almost  conclusive  evidence  in 
favor  of  this  law  of  interference  between 
sound-waves,  as  claimed  by  advocates  of 
the  hypothesis.  I therefore,  on  general 
principles,  could  not  believe 
that  the  representation,  as 
quoted,  was  truthful  to  any 
degree  which  would  tend  to 
|?t  favor  the  theory  of  wave- 
motion,  for  the  reason  that  I 
had  already  found  so  many 
considerations  bearing  di- 
rectly against  it  which  were 
absolutely  unanswerable ; and  because,  as 
all  science  and  reason  plainly  teach, a true 
theory  can  not  contradict  itself,  I was  there- 
fore compelled  to  assume,  in  advance,  on 
the  same  general  principles  of  logic,  that, 
should  any  sonorous  change  be  observed, 
on  drawing  out  one  branch  of  this  instru- 
ment half  a supposed  wave-length  longer 
than  the  other,  it  would  be  susceptible  of 
a satisfactory  explication  on  some  other 
hypothesis  than  that  of  wave-motion. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  I resolved 
to  test  the  matter  carefully,  and  now  have 
the  satisfaction  of  announcing  that  I have 
done  so  with  the  following  conclusive  re- 
sults. 

To  make  entirely  sure  of  my  data,  I first 
obtained  from  a friend  the  use  of  a conl- 
plete  Konig  instrument  (the  one  repre- 
sented in  the  engraving),  and  tested  it 
with  forks  of  different  vibrational  numbers, 


Chav.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


309 


carefully  drawing  out,  while  each  fork  was 
sounding,  the  sliding  branch  (b  //)  of  the 
device  in  order  to  detect  the  exact  point 
of  silence,  as  recorded  by  this  high  author- 
ity on  sound,  if  any  such  point  existed. 
But  I here  declare  to  the  reader  and  to 
the  scientific  world  that  no  such  thing  as 
silence  occurs,  nor  even  a respectable  ap- 
proach toward  it.  By  the  most  careful  act 
of  attention,  while  moving  the  sliding 
branch  of  the  instrument  backward  and 
forward,  a point  was  discovered  which 
produced  a slight  though  sensible  weak- 
ening of  the  tone,  but  it  required  care  to 
detect  it.  This,  however,  is  very  far  from 
justifying  the  extravagant  language  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  just  quoted,  namely, 
“ Drawing  a b out,  a pomt  is  at  length  at- 
tained where  the  sound  of  the  fork  is  extin- 
guished." This  is  not  true,  in  any  pardon- 
able sense  of  the  word  “extinguished, ’’since 
the  sound  of  the  fork  is  not  diminished  in 
intensity  more  than  about  one  quarter,  as 
any  sound-expert  would  readily  admit. 
So  much,  then,  for  the  reliability  of  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall’s  scientific  statements  when 
recording  simple  matters  of  fact,  on  which 
no  one  need  be  or  can  be  mistaken,  if  he 
has  ever  tried  the  experiment. 

But  here  comes  the  important  question, 
What  causes  this  sensible  weakening  of  the 
tone  as  the  sliding  branch  of  the  instru- 
ment is  drawn  out  to  a certain  point,  if 
there  is  no  truth  in  the  wave-theory  or  in 
this  law  of  interference  between  sound- 
waves? This  is  an  inquiry  which  must 
naturally  suggest  itself  to  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  and,  in  arriving  at  a correct  answer, 
it  will  be  found,  as  I now  propose  to  show, 
that  physicists  have  wholly  misapprehended 
this  instrument  and  its  acoustical  effects, 
as  was  so  clearly  proved  to  be  the  case 
with  the  “phase  of  opposition”  in  the  double 
siren , and  that  this  change  of  tone  has 
nothing  to  do  with  air-waves  or  their 


supposed  interference.  The  attention  of 
sound-investigators  is  especially  invited  to 
the  solution  about  to  be  given,  which  will 
no  doubt  be  new  to  acoustical  science. 

By  means  of  one  specific  test  (with  which 
all  others  agreed),  I found  that  a fork  with 
256  vibrations  in  a second,  and  a conse- 
quent wave-length  of  52  inches,  sounded 
at  o (see  engraving),  required  the  sliding 
branch  b n to  be  drawn  out  not  sufficiently 
to  make  half  a wave-length  difference  in 
the  two  branches  (26  inches),  but  exactly 
24  inches,  in  order  to  produce  the  maxi- 
mum change  or  diminution  of  intensity. 
This  would  make  the  whole  wave-length 
from  such  a fork  but  48  inches,  instead 
of  52  as  it  should  be;  that  is,  if  this  en- 
feebling effect  was  actually  due  to  the  in- 
terference of  two  systems  of  air-waves,  as 
Professor  Tyndall  teaches.  Besides,  if  this 
weakening  of  tone  was  the  effect  of  a gen- 
uine interference  between  the  condensations 
of  one  stream  of  sound  and  the  rarcfactioiis 
of  another,  there  should  be  “absolute  si- 
lence,” as  all  physicists  teach,  since  the 
two  wave-systems  are  exactly  equal.  But 
as  there  is  a reduction  only  of  a scarcely 
noticeable  fraction  of  the  normal  intensity 
of  the  tone  of  the  fork,  which  reduction 
takes  place  at  a point  differing  materially 
from  the  half  wave-length  hypothesis,  it 
follows  that  the  phenomenon,  whatever  it 
may  be,  must  be  explained  on  some  other 
principle  than  that  of  so-called  “interfer- 
ence”between  two  systems  of  atmospheric 
sound-waves.  Is  not  this  mechanically, 
acoustically,  and  mathematically,  incon- 
trovertible ? 

I will  now  undertake  to  give  a solution 
of  this  phenomenon,  without  resorting  to 
any  such  incongruous  laws  and  facts  as 
those  involved  in  the  explanation  based 
on  the  assumption  of  wave-motion,  and 
will  endeavor  to  explain  how  this  solution 
was  arrived  at. 


3io 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


I became  satisfied,  on  finding  that  the 
difference  between  the  two  branches,  at 
the  point  of  greatest  diminution  of  sound, 
was  24  instead  of  26  inches,  that  the  effect 
must  be  the  result  of  resonance , and  there- 
fore must  be  due  to  either  the  re-enforce- 
ment  or  opposition  of  the  two  vibrating 
air-columns  of  the  two  tubes,  the  same  as 
just  explained  in  regard  to  the  cause  of 
beats.  To  strengthen  this  surmise, I found 
that  the  same  fork  (256  vibrations)  held 
over  the  mouth  of  a tube  open  at  both 
ends,  required  24  inches  as  its  maximum 
resonant  depth,  or  a depth  corresponding 
exactly  to  the  difference  between  the  two 
branches  m and  thus  proving,  incident- 
ally, that  a tube  open  at  both  ends  is  some- 
what more  than  double  the  resonant  depth 
of  a similar  tube  having  one  end  closed; 
and  thus  again  showing  the  habitual  inac- 
curacy of  ProfessorTyndall’s  observations, 
who  teaches  that  the  length  of  one  tube  is 
exactly  double  that  of  the  other. 

The  fact  thus  discovered,  that  the  max- 
imum resonant  depth  of  a single  open  tube 
agreed  precisely  with  the  difference  in  the 
length  of  these  two  open  tubes  forming  the 
Konig  instrument,  my  next  effort  was  to 
invent  some  means  of  verifying  my  con- 
clusion, and  thus  demonstrating  that  it 
was  not  the  “interference”  of  two  streams 
of  sound-waves,  but  an  effect  of  resonance 
which  caused  this  perceptible  weakening 
of  sound.  Fortunately  the  invention  came 
to  me,  and  accordingly  I constructed  the 
Konig  instrument,  with  the  important  dif- 
ference of  elastic  branches  (;«  and  fi)  formed 
of  rubber  tubing,  which  could  be  attached 
and  detached  of  any  required  length,  and 
stopped  off  at  any  desired  portion  of  either 
branch.*  I ascertained  by  the  first  test 
that  precisely  the  same  effect  was  produced 

* The  improved  Konig  instrument,  with  elastic 
branches,  here  referred  to,  can  be  seen  at  the  office 
of  IIali.  & Co.,  publishers  of  this  book. 


with  the  elastic  tubes  as  with  those  of  the 
Konig  instrument,  and  that  the  greatest 
diminution  was  reached,  as  before,  when 
the  difference  in  length  was  24  inches  in- 
stead of  26  inches,  or  a half  wave-length. 

Retaining  this  proportion  of  length  be- 
tween the  two  branches,  my  next  experi- 
ment was  to  take  advantage  of  the  elastic 
tube  by  pinching  it  together,  between  my 
thumb  and  finger,  at  various  places,  while 
the  fork  was  sounding  at  o,  and  observing 
the  result  with  one  branch  open  and  the 
other  closed;  and,  to  my  surprise  and 
gratification,  I found  that  my  suspicions 
were  correct,  and  that  I could  obtain  ex- 
actly the  same  result  of  weakening  the 
tone  by  stopping  off  the  short  branch  be- 
tween ix  and  12  inches  from  f,  thus  having 
but  one  stream  of  sound  instead  of  two ! 
I thus  demonstrated  the  fact  that  at  this 
particular  point  there  was  not  the  slightest 
difference  in  the  intensity  or  quality  of  the 
tone  when  the  sound  passed  through  both 
branches  and  “interfered,”  as  supposed, 
and  when  it  passed  through  the  long  branch 
alone,  and  resounded  back  in  opposition 
from  the  short  tube  closed  at  one  end.  I 
made  this  conclusive  test  by  pinching  and 
relieving  the  tube  in  rapid  succession,  thus 
suddenly  changing  from  two  streams  to 
one;  but  not  the  least  difference  could  be 
observed,  as  just  remarked,  in  the  quantity 
or  quality  of  the  sound,  the  same  effect 
being  produced  by  the  opposing  resonance 
of  one  open  and  one  closed  tube  as  was 
produced  by  the  opposing  resonance  of 
two  open  tubes  with  a resonant  difference 
of  24  inches  in  length. 

To  complete  the  demonstration  that 
there  was  nothing  in  this  supposition  of 
“ interference”  between  the  two  streams 
of  sound  or  their  supposed  air-waves,  I 
adjusted  the  two  branch  tubes  to  exactly 
equal  lengths,  which,  of  course,  produced 
the  full  resonant  effect  of  both  tubes. 


CiiAr.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


3i  1 


Then, by  simply  pinching  one  of  the  tubes, 
as  before,  at  about  12  inches  from  /,  I ob- 
tained the  same  weakening  of  tone  pre- 
cisely as  was  observed  when  the  branches 
differed  by  24  inches,  or  when  the  two 
streams  were  in  supposed  “interference”! 
I thus  clearly  proved  that  dividing  the 
stream  of  sound  into  two  branches  of  un- 
equal lengths,  and  again  causing  their  air- 
waves to  unite  and  “interfere,”  was  a pure 
misapprehension  of  physicists, and  amount- 
ed to  nothing  at  all  in  favor  of  wave-motion, 
since  a single  continuous  stream  gave  ex- 
actly the  same  result  when  opposed  by  a 
closed  tube  of  a different  resonant  depth. 

This  weakening  of  tone  caused  by  the 
two  branches  of  the  tube  differing  half  a 
supposed  wave-length,  as  well  as  the  effects 
of  the  test  last  given,  will  no  doubt  be 
found,  when  fully  understood,  to  be  only 
the  result  of  coalescence  or  opposition 
between  two  resonant  columns  of  air  of 
different  vibrational  numbers,  which  re- 
enforce or  oppose  each  other  by  the  law 
of  sympathetic  attraction,  in  a somewhat 
analogous  manner  to  the  attraction  and 
repulsion  of  two  magnets,  as  recently  inti- 
mated, and  as  illustrated  in  musical  beats. 
At  all  events,  the  hypothesis  of  two  streams 
of  sound  “interfering”  by  the  condensations 
of  the  one  system  of  waves  coalescing  with 
the  rarefactions  of  the  other,  is  completely 
exploded  by  these  experiments  with  the 
elastic  tube  improvement  on  Konig’s  in- 
strument, which  show  that  any  resonant 
effect  produced  by  dividing  the  sound  into 
two  streams  can  be  equally  obtained  by  a 
single  stream,  as  just  described,  in  connec- 
tion with  a closed  resonant  tube  of  certain 
depth. 

Aside  from  this  solution  of  the  problem, 
it  remains  an  unassailable  fact  that  no  such 
thing  as  siletice  or  any  approximate  ap- 
proach toward  it  takes  place  when  one 
branch  is  half  a wave-length  longer  than 


the  other.  I emphasize  this  fact,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  authority  I am  quoting.  What, 
then,  must  be  thought  of  the  statement  of 
Professor  Tyndall,  in  which  he  distinctly 
says  that  when  drawn  out  to  the  difference 
of  half  a wave-length,  “ the  sound  of  the 
fork  is  extinguished ”?  He  either  delib- 
erately and  knowingly  misrepresented  the 
facts  of  the  case,  or  else  he  taught  and 
published  to  the  world  on  mere  inference 
or  hearsay,  as  science,  that  of  which  he 
had  no  personal  knowledge,  because  it 
seemed  to  favor  the  hypothesis  of  wave- 
motion  ! It  is  the  safest  and  altogether 
the  most  charitable  view  to  assume  that 
he  never  tested  an  apparatus  of  the  kind, 
and  possibly  never  saw  one;  for  it  is  alto- 
gether probable,  if  he  had  ever  seen  one 
of  these  Konig  instruments,  his  curiosity 
would  have  induced  him  to  test  it,  and 
thus  correctly  inform  himself  as  to  its 
sonorous  effects.  How  he  dared  venture 
to  make  such  baseless  explanations  of  an 
apparatus  he  had  never  tested,  and  which 
was  so  easily  obtainable,  baffles  human 
ingenuity  to  conceive. 

In  addition  to  this  altogether  probable 
supposition,  I now  venture  the  assertion, 
without  knowing  the  facts,  that  the  Royal 
Institution  of  London,  under  whose  aus- 
pices these  lectures  on  Sound  were  de- 
livered, does  not  own  one  of  these  Konig 
instruments,  or  at  least  did  not  at  the  time 
of  their  occurrence,  since  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  if  such  a device  had  been 
among  the  scientific  apparatus  of  that  in- 
stitution some  one  of  the  members  would 
at  some  time  or  other  have  had  the  curios- 
ity to  test  it,  and  would  thus  have  been 
enabled  to  enlighten  Professor  Tyndall, 
who  evidently  stood  in  such  pressing  need 
of  it. 

It  is  a singularly  incongruous  fact  that 
this  eminent  author  takes  especial  pains 
to  commend  scientific  investigators  who 


3 12 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


shirk  no  pains  or  labor  in  arriving  at  the 
exact  truth,  wherever  it  may  lead  them, 
or  whether  it  favors  a pre-adopted  theory 
or  not,  and  who  never  take  anything  for 
granted  in  science  on  mere  theory  ox  infer- 
ence when  an  experiment  is  possible  to 
verify  or  contravene  it!  His  eulogistic 
commendations  of  physicists  who  thus 
labor  are  so  praiseworthy  that  I must 
quote  one  or  two  sentences: — 

“Those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  details 
of  scientific  investigation  have  no  idea  of  the  amount 
of  labor  expended  in  the  determination  of  those 
numbers  on  which  important  calculations  or  infer- 
ences depend.  . . . There  is  a morality  brought  to 
bear  on  such  matters,  which,  in  point  of  severity,  is 
probably  without  a parallel  in  any  other  domain  of 
intellectual  action.  The  desire  for  anything  but  the 
truth  must  be  absolutely  annihilated;  and , to  attain 
perfect  accuracy,  no  labor  must  be  shirked,  no  diffi- 
culty ignored." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  26. 

Why  did  Professor  Tyndall,  after  em- 
ploying such  beautiful  language  as  this 
in  commendation  of  faithful  workers  in 
science, shirk  the  labor  of  testing  the  Konig 
instrument,  which  he  might  have  readily 
obtained,  before  publishing  to  the  world  a 
scientific  description  of  its  effects  having 
not  a shadow  of  foundation  in  truth,  thus 
practicing  a breach  of  that  “morality” 
which  he  commends  in  others,  and  de- 
ceiving the  young  scientific  students  of 
the  land,  who  look  to  him  as  a guide? 
Why  did  he  shirk  the  labor  and  ignore  the 
difficulty  of  testing  two  unison  forks  or 
other  sounding  bodies  placed  half  a wave- 
length apart,  by  which  he  could  have  con- 
vinced himself  that  not  the  slightest  differ- 
ence occurs  in  their  sounds  from  such  in- 
ferential or  theoretic  “interference,”  when 
it  would  not  have  taken  him  half  an  hour 
to  make  the  experiment,  and  completely 
overthrow  the  wave-theory?  Instead  of 
acting  on  this  principle  of  fidelity  to  scien- 
tific truth,  which  he  had  so  highly  eulo- 
gized in  others, — that  “the  desire  for  any- 


thing but  the  truth  must  be  absolutely  an- 
nihilated; and,  to  attain  perfect  accuracy  ,110 
labor  must  be  shirked,  no  difficulty  ignored ,” — 
he  found  it  altogether  more  available  and 
convenient  to  deal  in  scintillating  theoret- 
ics, for  which  he  is  so  noted,  about  the 
“interference”  of  hypothetic  air-waves, 
which  have  no  real  existence  in  Nature, 
and  thus  “shirked”  the  trifling  labor  of 
sounding  two  forks  at  different  distances 
apart,  while  his  assistant  observed  in  line 
their  acoustical  effects!  The  truth  is,  he 
could  not  help  knowing  that  his  theory  of 
“interference”  would  have  appeared  to 
much  better  advantage  had  he  been  able 
to  demonstrate  it  before  his  audience  by 
producing  “absolute  silence”  between  two 
unison  instruments  sounding  half  a wave- 
length apart.  But  for  some  reason,  which 
I leave  the  reader  to  find  out,  he  did  not 
attempt  any  such  a fatal  experiment.  In 
connection  with  this  manifest  shirking  of 
labor,  I beg  the  reader  to  note  his  pen- 
painting of  a “true  physical  philosopher”: 

‘ ‘ The  true  physical philosopher  never  rests  content 
with  an  inference  when  an  experiment  to  verify  or 
contravene  it  is  possible." — Lectures  on  Sound,  p.  36. 

Yet  he  was  “content”  to  assume,  on 
mere  theoretic  “inference,”  the  most  im- 
portant and  pivotal  facts  of  the  current 
sound-theory,  when  an  “experiment,”  cost- 
ing but  a few  minutes  of  his  time,  would 
have  not  only  contravened  such  assump- 
tions, but,  in  doing  so,  would  have  anni- 
hilated the  whole  theory,  since  the  as- 
sumed facts  named  constituted  the  very 
key  to  the  main  arch  of  the  superstruc- 
ture. 

He  not  only  rested  “content”  to  shirk 
the  labor  of  an  “experiment”  to  test  the 
truth  of  many  of  his  most  fundamental 
hypotheses,  but  in  some  cases  he  even 
spent  more  time  in  fixing  an  experiment 
to  favor  his  theory  than  it  would  have 
taken  to  make  an  honest  experiment,  and 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


3i3 


thus  “contravene  it”!  As  a proof,  look  at 
his  effort  to  put  the  “smoke  of  brown 
paper”  into  “one  end”  of  his  tin  tube,  so 
that  no  “puff”  should  be  ejected  from  the 
other  end  on  clapping  the  books,  when  it 
would  have  cost  less  care,  at  least,  to  fill 
the  whole  tube  by  elevating  its  small  end, 
and  thus  to  have  shattered  his  experiment! 
(See  page  270,  and  onward.)  The  absolute 
annihilation  of  a “ desire  for  anything  but 
the  truth ” did  not  seem  to  apply  to  this 
case,  and  clearly  demonstrates  that  the 
experimenter  was  not  a “true  physical 
philosopher,”  according  to  his  own  defini- 
tion, or  he  would  not  have  “shirked  the 
labor”  of  filling  the  whole  tube,  and  thus 
have  rested  “content  with  an  inference" 
when  an  “experiment”  was  at  hand  to 
“contravene”  the  hypothesis! 

These  animadversions  may  seem  un- 
kindly severe;  but,  as  a “true  physical  phi- 
losopher,” I dare  not  “ignore”  nor  “shirk” 
the  responsibility  of  exposing  such  unre- 
liability in  the  discussion  of  scientific  phe- 
nomena. I am  forced,  in  truth,  to  assert 
that  no  careful  and  competent  observer 
can  fail  to  be  astonished,  on  reading  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall’s  various  scientific  works, 
at  the  continual  recurrence  of  the  most 
glaring  inaccuracies  everywhere  visible. 
I open  accidentally,  as  an  illustration,  to 
page  49  of  his  Lectures  on  Sound , and  see 
this  prominent  “law”  announced: — 

“To  produce  a musical  sound  we  must  have  a 
body  which  vibrates  with,  the  unerring  regularity 
of  the  pendulum." 

Yet  a more  erroneous  proposition  was 
never  penned  in  a scientific  work,  since  it 
can  be  shown  that  a highly  “musical  sound” 
may  be  produced,  in  which  no  two  of  its 
vibrations  are  of  the  same  periodicity!  To 
make  sure  that  the  above  statement  was 
not  a slip  of  the  pen,  he  repeats  it  on  the 
next  page  in  even  stronger  and  more  ex- 
plicit language.  He  seems  to  do  this  to 


impress  it  upon  the  reader,  that,  under  no 
circumstances,  can  there  be  an  exception 
to  the  rule  : — 

“The  only  condition  necessary  to  the  production 
of  a musical  sound  is  that  the  pulses  should  succeed 
each  other  in  the  same  interval  of  time,"  or,  as  be- 
fore expressed,  "with  the  unerring  regularity  of  the 
pendulum." 

The  fallacy  of  this  carefully  reiterated 
law  can  be  shown  in  a single  sentence. 
The  motion  of  a pendulum,  as  every  one 
knows,  is  perfectly  isochronous;  that  is,  it 
oscillates  with  exactly  the  same  periodic 
intervals,  when  once  started,  from  its  long- 
est to  its  shortest  swings,  or  until  it  settles 
entirely  to  rest;  whereas,  the  most  “mu- 
sical” of  all  the  sounds  produced  in  an 
orchestra,  as  every  musician  is  aware,  are 
the  sliding  tones  of  the  violin  or  violoncello , 
in  which  no  two  vibrations  are  of  the  same 
periodicity,  and  hence  are  the  very  oppo- 
site of  isochronous  or  pendulous,  as  to  in- 
tervals of  time! 

But  why  spend  time  in  pointing  out  and 
criticising  the  philosophical  views  of  a 
writer  who  tacitly  admits  himself  not  to 
be  a “true  physical  philosopher,”  by  not 
conforming  to  the  requisites  he  has  him- 
self prescribed? 

While  thousands  of  scientific  students 
are  to-day  ready  to  accept  almost  any 
proposition  relating  to  the  advanced  the- 
ories of  the  time,  if  they  only  know  it  to 
have  the  indorsement  of  Professor  Tyndall, 
I declare  to  the  reader,  upon  my  conscien- 
tious conviction,  that,  from  the  evidence 
of  the  quotations  in  these  pages  alone,  it 
would  be  a safe  general  rule  to  reject,  as 
probably  fallacious,  any  scientific  theory 
of  which  he  might  have  become  a prom- 
inent champion.  Of  course  there  are  ex- 
ceptions to  most  general  rules, and  it  would 
be  strange  if  even  a uniform  tendency  to 
inaccuracy  should  not  occasionally  diverge 
into  the  truth. 

I might  continue  these  direct  and  dam- 


3r4 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


aging  quotations  ad  libitum , had  I space, 
as  there  is  not  an  instance  in  this  whole 
course  of  lectures  on  Sound,  where  the  truth 
of  the  wave-theory  is  directly  involved  in  the 
explanation,  which  could  not  be  equally 
turned  against  the  lecturer  and  made  to 
militate  against  the  current  hypothesis  of 
sound.  But  the  fatal  instances  already 
given  are  a sufficient  illustration  of  the 
blinding ' influence  of  a false  theory  in 
leading  the  greatest  intellects  into  error, 
even  on  the  simplest  questions  of  fact. 

And  here  I feel  compelled  to  say  that  it 
has  been  extremely  unpleasant,  and  even 
embarrassing,  though  a moral  and  scientific 
necessity  in  my  case,  as  explained  in  the 
preface,  to  be  forced  to  take  issue  with 
such  unqualified  antagonism  with  so  emi- 
nent a scientist,  especially  on  simple  ques- 
tions of  veracity  and  fact, — such  as  those 
concerning  two  unison  forks  sounding  half 
a wave-length  apart,  and  the  acoustical 
effects  of  the  Konig  instrument, — ques- 
tions in  regard  to  which  the  possibility 
of  being  in  error  is  so  utterly  unneces- 
sary that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any- 
thing short  of  an  unpardonable  want  of 
information,  which  could  have  superin- 
duced such  reckless  assumptions  and  such 
erroneous  statements.  Yet  this  very  ex- 
planation of  the  engraving  just  reproduced 
from  his  book,  and  this  action  of  two  uni- 
son forks  in  abolishing  each  other’s  sound 
when  placed  half  a wave-length  apart,  are 
but  the  legitimate  fruits  of  the  wave-theory, 
being  no  more  foundationless  than  any 
other  part  of  the  hypothesis,  and  no  less 
conspicuously  and  distinctly  inculcated  by 
every  other  writer  on  Sound,  in  proportion 
to  his  ability,  than  by  this  physicist. 

However,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a mat- 
ter of  congratulation  to  the  scientific  world, 
as  well  as  to  the  general  public,  that  this 
great  authority  has  narrowed  down  the 
whole  question  as  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of 


the  wave-theory  of  sound  to  a few  simple 
and  representative  questions  of  fact, which 
need  not  depend  for  a single  day  on  any 
man’s  veracity  or  scientific  standing.  For 
example,  this  single  representative  ques- 
tion of  “interference”  between  air-waves, 
in  which  the  whole  wave-hypothesis  is  in- 
trinsically involved,  namely,  whether  two 
unison  forks, or  other  instruments,  if  sound- 
ed half  a wave-length  apart,  with  the  ear 
stationed  in  line,  can  be  heard  the  same 
as  in  any  other  position,  must  absolutely 
settle  the  whole  undulatory  problem,  now 
and  forever.  If  they  can  be  heard  the  same 
in  that  as  in  a?iy  other  position,  which  the 
whole  world  knows  to  be  a fact,  then  the 
wave-theory  falls  to  pieces , and  with  it  falls 
Professor  Tyndall  as  a scientist! 

It  may  seem  unduly  severe  thus  to  select 
out  for  a target  the  scientific  reputation  of 
one  physicist,  who  is  but  equally  involved 
with  others  who  have  written  on  the  sub- 
ject of  sound.  But,  in  determining  the 
basis  of  my  arguments  against  the  undu- 
latory theory,  I was  compelled  to  choose 
for  my  principal  antagonist  a strictly  rep- 
resentative English  authority  to  quote 
from,  that  my  review,  after  being  com- 
pleted, might  not  fall  flat  from  not  having 
touched  the  bottom  facts  of  the  hypothesis, 
or  from  having  failed  to  grapple  with  the 
“highest  living  authority.”  I therefore 
selected  Professor  Tyndall  (in  connection 
with  Professor  Helmholtz,  the  represent- 
ative German,  and  Professor  Mayer,  the 
highest  American  authority),  recognized 
by  the  civilized  world  as  the  most  emi- 
nently popular  exponent  of  these  various 
scientific  theories, — particularly  that  of 
sound, — and  whose  lectures  on  the  sub- 
ject, from  which  my  citations  arc  made, 
have  been  translated  into  all  the  leading 
languages  of  Europe.  If,  therefore,  he 
has  fallen  the  fated  victim  upon  the  altar 
of  progressive  truth,  to  appease  the  wrath 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


3i5 


of  the  scientific  gods,  he  may  attribute  the 
catastrophe  to  his  having  become  a more 
conspicuous  target  than  any  of  his  coad- 
jutors, by  the  greater  triumphs  of  his 
genius  in  popularizing  a theory  having  no 
foundation  in  Nature  or  true  science,  and 
no  merit  as  a philosophical  hypothesis 
save  that  imparted  to  it  by  the  ingenuity 
of  its  advocates. 

I will  now  briefly  fulfill  a promise  inti- 
mated in  the  early  part  of  this  monograph, 
and  that  is  to  again  call  attention,  at  the 
close  of  the  work,  to  the  conspicuous  and 
incongruous  fact,  that,  while  a fork  or 
string  in  vibrating  moves  through  the  air 
at  a velocity  of  only  a few  inches  in  a 
second,  it  actually  “sends”  off  air-waves, 
as  we  are  taught  by  physicists,  at  the  enor- 
mous velocity  of  1 1 20  feet  in  the  same  time. 

I have  repeatedly  urged,  and  given  rea- 
sons for  believing,  as  the  reader  doubtless 
recollects,  that  there  can  be  no  measurable 
spring-force  to  free  air,  while  it  contains 
no  appreciable  elasticity  when  unconfined 
by  which  a body  moving  through  it  can 
transmit  a pulse  to  a distance,  or  stir  the 
atmosphere  even  a short  space  in  advance 
by  causing  one  particle  to  push  another, 
it  another,  and  so  on,  as  was  illustrated  by 
Professor  Tyndall  with  his  row  of  glass 
balls. 

I also  stated  that  this  principle  of  mo- 
bility, one  of  the  most  prominent  charac- 
teristics of  our  atmosphere,  was  of  neces- 
sity ignored  by  physicists  in  their  discus- 
sions of  atmospheric  wave-motion,  since 
to  recognize  such  a law,  when  assuming 
the  transmission  of  an  air-wave  to  a dis- 
tance and  at  great  velocity  by  a slowly 
moving  fork  or  string,  would  be  a fatal 
self-contradiction,  as  any  kind  of  an  im- 
pulse or  atmospheric  disturbance  what- 
ever must  be  counteracted  and  almost  in- 
stantly neutralized  by  a persistent  ten- 
dency to  equilibrium. 


Whatever  displacement  of  the  air-par- 
ticles, therefore,  may  be  effected  by  a vi- 
brating string,  such  disturbed  air  can  only 
travel,  till  it  settles  finally  to  rest,  at  a ve- 
locity equal  to  that  of  the  displacing  body. 
The  aggregate  distance  traveled  in  a sec- 
ond, in  one  direction,  by  a vibrating  prong 
or  string,  can  not,  as  elsewhere  shown, 
be  more  than  seven  or  eight  inches  in  a 
second. 

It  is  true  that  some  portion  of  the  travel 
of  a string  in  its  oscillation  to  and  fro  is 
swifter  than  its  mean  velocity,  owing  to  its 
tensile  force  added  to  its  momentum;  but 
how  much  swifter  at  its  point  of  highest 
speed  I have  not  been  able  to  calculate  to 
a certainty,  nor  have  I been  able  to  find 
any  one  who  could  aid  me  in  determining 
this  question  to  a nicety.  If  we  even  sup- 
pose its  highest  speed,  at  any  one  point  of 
its  travel,  to  be  four  times  that  of  its  mean 
velocity,  which  unquestionably  exceeds  the 
fact,  and  estimating  but  one  half  of  the 
second  occupied  by  its  forward  motion 
and  the  other  half  by  its  return  motion, 
it  would  make  its  rate  of  velocity  at  the 
swiftest  part  of  its  travel  but  64  inches  in 
a second,  or  not  more  than  the  one  two  hun- 
dredth part  the  velocity  of  sound.  This, 
manifestly,  as  the  most  ordinary  mind 
must  comprehend,  is  the  utmost  .velocity 
an  air-wave  could  attain,  which  receives 
ihs  impetus  from  an  object  moving  through 
the  air  at  a speed  no  greater  than  that 
postulated  above,  as  the  highest  point  of 
velocity  in  a vibrating  string. 

Thus,  while  a string,  estimating  the 
swiftest  portion  of  its  travel,  moves  only 
at  the  rate  of  sixty-four  inches  in  a second, 
it  sends  off  its  air-waves,  as  the  current 
theory  necessarily  teaches,  at  a velocity  of 
thirteen  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty 
inches  in  the  same  time j or,  in  other  words, 
it  projects  these  aerial  undulations  through 
the  air  more  than  two  hundred  times  swifter 


3*6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


than  the  very  motion  which  gives  them 
their  impetus!  Was  there  ever  anything 
taught  as  science  more  transcendently  or 
transparently  impossible  than  this?  Yet, 
incredible  as  it  may  seem,  this  is  the  exact 
and  unavoidable  teaching  of  the  wave- 
theory,  which  my  friends  have  thought  me 
almost  if  not  quite  insane  for  attempting 
to  assail;  while  the  most  ordinary  student 
must  see  that  by  no  law  of  philosophy, 
and  by  no  rules  of  mensuration  known  in 
heathen  or  Christian  lands,  could  such  a 
string  “send”  off  corporeal  waves  of  any 
kind  of  mobile  substance  a distance  of  more 
than  sixty-four  inches  in  a second, , even  if 
the  friction  and  inertia  of  such  substance 
were  wholly  abolished! 

These  facts  more  than  bear  out  all  I 
formerly  said  when  presenting  the  fatal 
illustration  of  the  locust.  I then  asserted 
that  it>must  be  evident  to  any  thoughtful 
mind  that  the  stridulation,  so  far  from 
churning  the  entire  atmosphere  throughout 
four  square  miles  into  condensations  and 
rarefactions,  did  not  stir  the  air  a foot 
around  the  insect,  while  what  atmospheric 
disturbances  did  occur  would  not  probably 
travel  at  a velocity  greater  than  about  four 
fcct  in  a second.  Had  I placed  it  at  four 
inches  in  a second  I would  have  been  much 
nearer  the  proper  limit,  that  being  the  ag- 
gregate movement  of  the  insect’s  legs  in 
producing  the  tone.  Yet  it  remains  an  un- 
answerable fact  against  the  wave-hypoth- 
esis, that,  while  rasping  its  legs  across  the 
nervures  of  its  wings,  at  this  very  slow  rate 
of  speed,  the  shrill  tones  which  it  produces 
are  radiated  over  four  square  miles  of  at- 
mosphere at  a velocity  at  least  one  thousand 
times  greater  than  that  of  the  movement 
which  generates  the  sound! 

Should  I, as  a scientific  teacher, publicly 
declare  and  impress  it  upon  my  hearers 
that  a bullet , after  leaving  the  muzzle  of 
the  gun,  could  travel  with  a velocity  even 


two  hundred  times  greater  than  that  of 
the  gases  passing  through  the  gun-barrel 
which  gave  it  the  impetus,  as  does  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  virtually,  and  as  he  does 
actually  in  regard  to  air-waves,  it  could 
but  reasonably  be  inferred  either  that  I 
must  assume  my  audience  a convocation 
of  idiots, incapable  of  distinguishing  sound 
from  light,  whom  I wished  to  test  by  stat- 
ing a practical  absurdity, or  else  that  I had 
successfully  demonstrated  my  own  incom- 
petency to  handle  any  scientific  question. 
If,  however,  after  so  teaching  it,  I should 
persist  in  maintaining  it  as  true,  and  pub- 
lish to  the  world  as  a settled  fact  of  science 
that  a bullet  would  travel  thus  over  two 
hundred  times  faster  than  the  gases  giving 
it  the  impetus,  which  common  sense  would 
brand  as  a transparent  absurdity,  is  there 
any  language  in  which  to  frame  a rebuke 
too  severe  for  such  a crime  against  science 
and  human  intelligence? 

This  mechanical  law, which  is  applicable 
to  all  physical  bodies, — air-waves  the  same 
as  bullets , — does  not  apply  to  the  incorpo- 
real and  almost  infinitely  attenuated  ema- 
nations which  my  hypothesis  assumes,  and 
which  constitute  sound,  light,  heat,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism,  &c.;  for,  though  the 
vibrations  of  the  fork  generate  these  cor- 
puscles of  sound,  they  do  not  “send"  them 
a hair’s  breadth  from  its  prongs,  any  more 
than  the  effervescing  of  the  acid  or  the 
decomposition  of  the  zinc, which  generates 
the  electric  currents,  actually  imparts  to 
them  their  enormous  velocity  by  the  phys- 
ical tremors  of  the  battery ! 

I have  carefully  explained,  in  another 
portion  of  this  review,  that  all  such  incor- 
poreal emanations — as  of  sound,  light,  and 
heat, — acquire  their  velocity  manifestly/ 
and  alone  from  an  unknown,  and,  as  yet, 
inexplicable  law  of  radiation,  conduction, 
and  diffusion, which  is  entirely  independent 
of  any  vibratory  or  tremulous  motion  at 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


317 


their  source,  though  to  such  motion  their 
origin  or  generation  is  mostly  if  not  en- 
tirely to  be  attributed. 

No  one  knows,  or  can  know,  why  elec- 
tricity travels  at  such  an  inconceivable 
velocity  through  a wire,  while  no  one 
would  even  for  a moment  suspect  that  it 
was  caused  by  any  corresponding  physical 
movement  at  its  source,  any  more  than  the 
vegetable  tremors  among  the  petals  of  the 
rose  or  honeysuckle  were  the  means  of 
imparting  the  velocity  to  their  imponder- 
able granules  of  fragrance, causing  them  to 
diffuse  themselves  through  the  surround- 
ing atmosphere  at  considerable  speed.  It 
is  equally  irrational  to  suppose  that  the 
slight  movement  of  a tuning-fork  or  string, 
but  a distance  of  a few  inches  in  a second, 
can  project,  as  we  have  seen,  sound-pulses 
two  hundred  times  swifter  than  such  vibra- 
tory motion  through  a substance  absolutely 
devoid  of  appreciable  spring-power  when 
free  to  circulate,  as  is  the  case  with  air, 
which  is  the  clearest  possible  demonstra- 
tion that  such  pulses  can  not  be  consti- 
tuted of  air-waves,  since  the  physical  laws 
of  mechanics  hold  with  invariable  uniform- 
ity as  to  the  movements  of  all  tangible  and 
corporeal  substances,  such  as  air-waves  or 
water-waves,  where  an  equal  and  adequate 
mechanical  motion  and  force  are  necessary 
for  displacement  and  velocity. 

A steamboat-wheel,  for  example,  can 
not  by  any  possibility  “send”  the  waves 
of  water  from  it,  even  if  there  were  no 
inertia  or  friction  to  be  overcome,  at  a 
velocity  exceeding  that  of  its  revolving 
paddles.  What  would  be  thought  of  a 
scientist,  of  world-wide  fame  as  a public 
lecturer,  who  should  teach  and  then  pub- 
lish in  a book  that  such  a steamboat-wheel 
would  actually  “send”  the  waves  of  water 
away  from  its  revolving  paddles  two  hun- 
dred times  swifter  than  their  own  move- 
ment? This  is  exactly  what  Professor 


Tyndall  and  all  advocates  of  the  current 
sound-theory  teach  in  regard  to  vibrating 
strings,  tuning-forks,  &c.,  and  the  physical 
air-waves  which  they  are  supposed  to 
“send”  off!  The  bare  fact  that  water- 
waves  are  admitted  by  Professor  Helm- 
holtz to  be  “essentially  identical”  with  air- 
waves, ought  to  alone  overthrow  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  since  water-waves  can  not 
travel  faster  than  the  displacing  body  which 
gives  them  their  impetus. 

To  argue  the  point  further  than  to  thus 
clearly  and  distinctly  state  it  in  its  proper 
bearing  on  this  undulatory  question, would 
be  to  assume  the  reader  grossly  ignorant 
of  the  simplest  physical  and  mechanical 
effects.  I will  therefore  close  this  argu- 
ment by  saying, — as  Professor  Tyndall  will 
at  once  admit  that  the  aggregate  oscilla- 
tory movement  of  the  fork  referred  to  does 
not  exceed  sixty-four  inches  in  a second, 
even  counting  its  point  of  greatest  speed, 
while  the  velocity  of  sound  is  13,440  inches 
in  the  same  time,  or  more  than  two  hun- 
dred times  faster  than  the  motion  of  the 
fork, — that  the  demonstration  becomes 
absolutely  unassailable,  namely,  that  these 
sound-pulses  radiated  from  a vibrating 
instrument  are  not  constituted  of  air -waves 
at  all , and  hence  that  the  popular  atmos- 
pheric wave-theory  of  sound  has  utterly 
and  hopelessly  broken  down. 

Lastly,  in  bringing  to  a close  this  some- 
what extended  review,  I have  the  pleasure 
of  presenting  an  argument  which  has  been 
purposely  reserved  as  a suitable  culmina- 
tion of  this  monograph.  I trust  it  will  not 
be  considered  unduly  egotistical  if  I should 
declare  as  my  deliberately  formed  convic- 
tion that  the  argument  to  which  reference 
is  here  had  is  not  only  entirely  original, 
but  that,  singly  and  alone,  it  is  sufficient 
to  break  down  the  wave-theory  of  sound, 
even  if  the  preceding  portion  of  this  trea- 
tise were  blotted  out;  and  I have  no  hesi- 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


318 

tation  in  further  adding  my  belief  that 
an  unbiassed  physicist  can  not  help  at 
once  admitting  the  truth  of  this  statement, 
after  carefully  reading  the  argument  to 
which  I refer. 

This  investigation  of  the  nature  of  sound 
has  already  been  extended  to  nearly  double 
the  number  of  pages  originally  contem- 
plated, without  exhausting  the  subject  or 
presenting  more  than  a tithe  of  the  objec- 
tions which  might  pertinently  be  urged 
against  the  current  hypothesis.  But  a 
limit  must  be  unavoidably  reached  at  some 
point  in  the  discussion, and  I see  no  better 
way  to  fix  upon  it  than  with  the  single 
consideration  here  to  be  presented;  though 
I have  every  reason  to  feel  assured  that 
sufficient  has  been  already  adduced  to 
convince  the  candid  and  intelligent  stu- 
dent of  science  that  the  wave-theory  was 
originally  founded  on  a clearly  mistaken 
view  of  Nature’s  laws  and  forces.  However 
that  may  be,  I now  invite  the  reader  to 
the  argument  intimated,  as  follows: — 

I have  already  had  occasion,  in  discuss- 
ing the  cardinal  laws  and  principles  under- 
lying the  wave-theory  of  sound,  to  refer  to 
the  fact  that  there  exists,  according  to  the 
admissions  of  all  writers  on  the  subject,  an 
absolute  analogy,  amounting  to  a clearly 
defined  parallel,  between  so-called  sound- 
waves and  water-waves  (see  page  237,  and 
onward).  As  the  reader  no  doubt  recol- 
lects, I quoted  extended  passages  from 
Professor  Helmholtz,  the  highest  living 
authority  on  Sound,  showing,  in  the  most 
explicit  language,  that,  according  to  the 
accepted  view,  sound-waves  and  water- 
waves  are  “of  a precisely  similar  nature,” 
are  “essentially  identical,"  and  move  “ exactly 
in  the  same  way.”  A single  condensed  ex- 
tract will  be  here  reproduced  to  facilitate 
the  reader’s  examination: — 

“Suppose  a stone  to  be  thrown  into  a piece  of 
calm  water.  Round  the  spot  struck  there  forms  a 


little  ring  of  wave , which,  advancing  equally  in  all 
directions,  expands  to  a constantly  increasing  circle. 
Corresponding  to  this  ring  of  wave,  sound  also  pro- 
ceeds in  the  air  from  the  excited  point,  and  advances 
in  all  directions  as  far  as  the  limits  of  the  mass  of 
air  extend.  The  process  in  the  air  is  essentially 
identical  with  that  on  the  surface  of  7 eater . . . . The 
process  which  goes  on  in  the  atmospheric  ocean 
about  us  is  of  a precisely  similar  nattire.  . . . The 
waves  of  air  proceeding  from  a sounding  body 
transport  the  tremor  to  the  human  ear  exactly  in 
the  same  suay  as  the  svater  transports  the  tremor  pro- 
duced by  the  stone  to  the  floating  chip.” — Sensations 
of  Tone,  pp.  14,  15. 

In  view  of  the  universal  inculcation  of 
physicists  as  to  the  nature  of  sound-prop- 
agation, of  which  this  quotation  from  Pro- 
fessor Helmholtz  but  concisely  expresses 
the  substance,  I need  hardly  say,  that  if, 
on  a careful  examination  of  the  subject,  it 
shall  be  found  that  the  essential  elements  of 
wave-motion  are  diametrically  in  con  flict  with 
the  most  prominently  observed  phenomena  of 
sound,  does  it  need  any  further  reasoning 
to  show  that  the  wave-theory  itself  is  an 
unmistakable  fallacy  of  science? 

In  the  preceding  argument,  to  which 
reference  was  just  made,  the  reader  will 
remember  that  the  amplitude  and  wave- 
length of  water-waves  were  proved  to  in- 
variably sustain  a relative  proportion  to 
each  other,  in  feet  and  inches,  of  about 
1 to  10,  from  the  smallest  ripples,  having 
a wave-length  of  only  an  inch  from  crest 
to  crest,  to  the  largest  ocean  billows,  hav- 
ing two  and  even  three  hundred  feet  of 
wave-length.  This  relative  proportion  was 
shown  to  belong  to  the  very  nature  and 
necessity  of  wave-motion,  involving  prin- 
ciples and  laws,  which  were  pointed  out, 
inseparable  from  such  phenomena, whether 
in  air,  water,  or  any  other  fluid  substance. 
Hence,  when  it  was  ascertained,  by  the 
clearest  analysis  of  facts,  that  there  was 
no  amplitude  at  all,  or  oscillation  of  par- 
ticles to  and  fro,  in  substances  through 
which  sound  freely  passes,  such  as  the 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


3i9 


various  metals, — not  even  enough  to  be 
observed  with  the  aid  of  the  most  power- 
ful microscope, — \yhile  the  so-called  wave- 
lengths of  one  of  the  low  notes  of  the  piano 
(E,  with  40  vibrations  to  the  second),  ac- 
cording to  the  wave-theory, were  absolutely 
28  feet  in  air  and  476  feet  in  iron,  “from 
condensation  to  condensation ,”  did  it  really 
require  another  argument  to  show  to  a crit- 
ical scientific  mind  that  no  analogy  what- 
ever, or  even  an  approach  toward  analogy, 
could  exist  between  water-waves  and 
so-called  sound-waves?  And  was  it  not, 
therefore,  a conclusive  proof,  that,  instead 
of  undulatory  motion  being  the  law  govern- 
ing sonorous  propagation,  sound  travels  in 
direct  lines  through  all  substances, — wheth- 
er wood,  water,  air,  or  iron, — exactly  as 
the  corpuscular  hypothesis  requires,  thus 
making  it  every  way  probable  that  substan- 
tial sonorous  pulses  constitute  the  true  and 
only  solution  of  sound-phenomena  ? 

But  now  we  come  to  that  particular 
characteristic  of  water-waves  to  which  I 
have  been  alluding, — one  which  is  so  in- 
separable from  their  very  nature  and  ex- 
istence, and  so  marked  and  easily  deter- 
mined, that  it  becomes  conclusive  on  its 
face  against  the  hypothesis  of  atmospheric 
sound-waves,  by  destroying  the  very  idea 
of  any  analogy  between  the  phenomena  of 
sound  and  of  true  wave-motion ; thus  com- 
pleting the  destruction  of  the  undulatory 
theory  so  effectually  that  even  a child  may, 
by  means  of  this  single  argument,  over- 
whelm the  profoundest  physicist.  This 
peculiar  characteristic  of  water-waves,  and 
hence  of  all  wave-motion,  is  the  easily 
demonstrated  fact,  hitherto  unobserved 
by  any  writer  on  sound,  so  far  as  I am 
aware,  that  wave-velocity  is  always  and  ex- 
actly in  proportion  to  wave-length , or  distance 
from  crest  to  crest! 

I assert, unhesitatingly,  and  am  prepared 
to  demonstrate  it,  that  this  is  a character- 


istic of  every  conceivable  system  of  waves 
within  reach  of  our  observation,  and  is  so 
essentially  interblended  as  a part  and  par- 
cel of  the  nature  and  form  of  wave-motion, 
however  generated,  that  water-waves  can 
not  exist  at  all  outside  of  this  concisely 
expressed  law  of  Nature. 

Thus, if  the  position  I have  here  assumed 
be  susceptible  of  unquestionable  proof, — 
namely, that  water-waves  necessarily  travel 
with  a velocity  proportioned  exactly  to 
their  wave-length  or  distance  from  crest  to 
crest,  the  large  waves  traveling  many  times 
swifter  than  the  small  ones, — it  inevitably 
breaks  down  the  wave-theory,  as  the  un- 
scientific reader  can  at  once  see,  by  shat- 
tering its  very  foundation  of  atialogy  to 
wave-motion,  since  it  is  a well-known  fact, 
and  universally  admitted  by  physicists, 
that  there  is  no  difference  in  sound-velocity 
between  the  highest  notes,  such  as  D of  the 
piccolo  flute,  with  a theoretic  wave-length  of 
less  than  three  inches,  and  the  low  E,  for 
exa?nple,  of  the  double  bass,  with  a theoretic 
wave-length,  in  air,  of  twenty-eight  feet! 

In  fact,  the  most  casual  observation  of 
any  one  who  has  ever  listened  to  a band 
of  music  playing  at  a distance  of  a quarter 
of  a mile  away,  assures  him  full  well  that 
the  lowest  and  highest  sounds  produced  must 
travel  with  the  same  velocity,  since  they  reach 
the  ear  of  the  listener  in  perfect  time,  the 
same  as  if  he  were  stationed  within  a 
dozen  feet  of  the  players!  Were  this  not 
the  fact,  or,  in  other  words,  were  there  any 
analogy  between  sound  and  true  wave- 
motion,  the  music  of  a band  would  be 
utterly  unintelligible  if  heard  a single 
furlong  away,  as  the  low  notes,  with  long 
wave-lengths,  would  outstrip  the  high  ones, 
with  short  wave-lengths,  destroying  their 
rhythmical  relation  to  each  other,  and 
consequently  converting  the  most  harmo- 
nious chords  into  a medley  of  discordant 
sounds.  No  one,  with  the  least  music  in 


320 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


his  soul,  will  doubt  this,  especially  if  he 
pretends  to  reason  at  all  on  questions  of 
science. 

Hence,  it  only  needs  to  be  shown,  by 
positive  observation  and  measurement, 
that  large  water-waves,  having  long  wave- 
lengths, as  with  ocean  billows,  invariably 
travel  with  many  times  greater  velocity 
than  small  waves,  such  as  ripples  caused 
by  throwing  a pebble  into  a still  pond, 
in  order  to  annihilate,  by  an  infallible  law 
of  Nature,  the  very  principle  of  wave- 
motion  in  sonorous  propagation,  because, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  Professor 
Helmholtz  and  all  writers  on  the  subject, 
if  sound-waves  have  any  existence  in  fact, 
they  should, as  a matter  of  course, be  “of  a 
precisely  similar  ?iatnre"  with  water-waves, 
should  be  “ essentially  identical and  be 
propagated  “ exactly  in  the  same  way"! 
Clearly,  then,  if  the  velocity  of  water-waves 
is  proportioned  exactly  according  to  their 
wave-lengths,  while  all  sounds,  as  is  univer- 
sally known,  travel  with  the  same  uniform 
velocity,  without  the  least  regard  to  their 
supposed  wave-lengths,  it  must  follow  that 
instead  of  the  two  classes  of  phenomena 
being  analogous, it  makes  them11  essentially" 
opposite , “ precisely ” dissimilar,  while  they 
move  “ exactly"  in  a different  way!  It  only, 
therefore,  requires  the  literal  facts  in  re- 
gard to  wave-velocity  to  be  settled  in  order 
to  solve  this  whole  problem  of  the  nature 
of  sound. 

To  determine  the  question  involved  in 
this  final  argument,  and  to  leave  no  pos- 
sible room  for  doubt  as  to  these  pivotal 
facts,  I instituted  a series  of  searching  and 
careful  tests,  so  that  the  matter  could  be 
presented  to  the  scientific  reader  as  the 
result  of  actual  observation  and  measure- 
ment, and  not  as  the  result  of  a merely 
theoretic  hypothesis,  which,  as  we  have  so 
often  found,  may  turn  out  to  be  fallacious 
and  deceptive. 


Accordingly,  I began  my  investigations 
bytesting  the  velocity  of  the  smallest  well- 
defined  waves  I could  conveniently  meas- 
ure. To  secure  perfect  stillness, I procured 
the  use  of  a bath-room  facing  the  south, 
so  that  the  sun  might  shine  through  the 
glass  upon  the  surface  of  the  water.  I then 
filled  the  tub  (five  feet  long)  with  clear 
water,  and  arranged  above  it  a pendulum 
of  a suitable  length  to  beat  seconds:  and, 
by  so  turning  the  faucet  as  to  let  the  water 
drop  about  once  in  a minute,  I had  time 
to  observe  and  measure  one  system  of 
waves  before  another  had  commenced. 

(5 

There  was  no  trouble  in  accurately  ob- 
serving the  movement  of  these  tiny  ripples 
passing  off  as  a drop  struck  the  surface  of 
my  miniature  pond.  I found,  by  repeated 
observations,  that  such  wavelets  were  about 
one  inch  long  from  crest  to  crest,  each 
drop  producing  about  half  a dozen  well- 
defined  undulations.  Timing  these  waves 
by  the  motions  of  the  pendulum, there  was 
not  the  least  difficulty  in  ascertaining  that 
their  velocity  from  one  end  of  the  bath-tub 
to  the  other  was  at  the  rate  of  two  feet  in 
a second.  This  was  the  inauguration  of 
what  turns  out  to  be  an  important  scien- 
tific discovery, — so  important  that  it  com- 
pletely shatters  an  established  scientific 
theory  which  had  stood  unshaken  for  cen- 
turies, and  which  no  physicist  has  ever 
dreamed  of  calling  in  question. 

My  next  observation  was  made  on  the 
surface  of  a still  pond  surrounded  with 
high  banks,  so  that  no  action  of  the  wind 
might  interfere  with  the  accuracy  of  my 
measurements.  A distance  of  30  feet  was 
carefully  measured  off,  and  while  my  as- 
sistant dropped  stones  into  the  water  at 
given  signals  I timed  the  velocity  of  the 
waves  sent  off  by  noting  the  second-hand 
of  my  watch.  The  result  was,  after  re- 
peated experiments  and  much  careful  ob- 
I servation,  that  the  wave-velocity,  as  well 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


321 


as  wave-length,  was  proved  to  be  in  the 
exact  ratio  of  the  size  of  the  stones  dropped 
into  the  water, — those  weighing  about  a 
pound  driving  off  the  waves  the  full  dis- 
tance of  30  feet  in  10  seconds,  or  at  a ve- 
locity of  3 feet  a second.  These  waves  I 
found  to  have  a length  of  nearly  a foot 
from  crest  to  crest,  and  an  amplitude 
of  about  one  inch,  measuring  from  the 
bottom  of  the  trough  to  the  top  of  the 
crest,  as  I judged,  from  the  fact  that  such 
waves,  15  feet  from  my  assistant,  lifted 
the  water  around  a stake  half  an  inch 
above  the  normal  level  of  the  pond. 

Incidentally,  while  experimenting  in  this 
way,  I discovered  another  distinct  error 
into  which  Professor  Helmholtz  had  evi- 
dently been  led  by  the  misguiding  tendency 
of  a pre-adopted  theory.  In  his  anxiety 
to  show  that  sound-waves  and  water-waves 
were  “essentially  identical”  and  “precisely 
similar,”  he  was  innocently  (I  will  assume) 
led  to  misstate  entirely  the  actual  effect 
of  dropping  a stone  “into  a piece  of  calm 
water.”  In  order  to  make  this  effect  cor- 
respond to  that  of  a single  vibratory  mo- 
tion to  and  fro  of  a tuning-fork  or  harp- 
string upon  the  air,  such  stone,  of  course, 
must  be  made  to  produce  but  a single  wave, 
with  a single  crest  and  sinus,  since  a single 
complete  vibration  of  a sounding  instru- 
ment, as  all  writers  on  sound  tell  us,  gen- 
erates but  a single  sound-wave, having  one 
condensation  and  one  rarefaction,  both  of 
which  cease  the  moment  the  vibration 
ceases!  Hence,  it  was  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  Professor  Helmholtz,  in  order  to 
sustain  the  wave-theory,  to  leave  the  scien- 
tific impression  on  the  minds  of  his  read- 
ers that  a single  impulse  thus  produced 
on  the  surface  of  water  by  the  impact  of 
the  falling  stone  would  produce  but  a 
solitary  wave ! Accordingly,  his  language 
is  very  explicit,  as  just  quoted:  “Suppose 
a stone  to  be  thrown  into  a piece  of  calm 


water.  Around  the  spot  struck  there  forms 
a little  ring  of  wave,  which,  advancing 
equally  in  all  directions, expands  to  a con- 
stantly increasing  circle." 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  it  would  not  have 
answered  the  purposes  of  the  wave-theory, 
which  this  eminent  physicist  was  trying  to 
illustrate,  to  have  spoken  of  rings  of  waves 
being  thus  produced,  or  of  their  expansion 
to  constantly  increasing  circles,  as  this 
would  not  have  been  “precisely  similar” 
to  so-called  sound-waves!  But  what  is 
the  fact?  It  is  this, as  any  schoolboy  knows 
who  has  ever  thrown  a stone  into  a pond, 
namely,  that  a stone,  on  striking  the  sur- 
face of  water,  produces  more  than  a dozen 
perfectly  defined  waves,  which  pass  off  in 
all  directions,  forming  that  many  constantly 
increasing  circles, — thus,  in  a way  wholly 
unexpected,  showing  an  absolute  dissim- 
ilarity and  want  of  analogy  between  true 
wave-motion  and  these  hypothetic  sound- 
waves, even  allowing  physicists  to  fabricate 
them  in  their  own  way!  It  is  entirely  im- 
possible to  believe  that  Professor  Helm- 
holtz did  not  know  that  a stone  thrown 
“into  a piece  of  calm  water”  will  actually 
produce  a dozen  or  more  well-defined 
waves.  Why,  then,  did  he  speak  of  a 
single  uring  of  wave”  and  a single  u circle" l 
I leave  the  reader  to  answer. 

I next  entered  into  a series  of  careful 
experiments,  testing  and  measuring  waves 
sent  ashore  from  passing  steamboats  of 
different  sizes,  and  traveling  at  various 
rates  of  speed.  These  waves  were  of 
correspondingly  different  amplitudes  and 
wave-lengths,  ranging  from  8 to  20  feet 
from  crest  to  crest,  and  from  10  to  24 
inches  from  crest  to  sinus,  thus  keeping 
up  a uniform  proportion  of  about  1 to  ro, 
in  feet  and  inches,  between  amplitude  and 
#wave-length,  as  heretofore  urged.  To  de- 
termine the  matter  carefully,  my  assistant 
took  a position  in  a small  boat  300  feet 


322 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


from  shore,  measured  by  a line  which  he 
kept  taut;  and,  as  the  first  wave  from  a 
passing  steamboat  would  reach  him,  he 
would  give  me  the  signal,  so  I could  note 
the  time  elapsing  till  it  had  reached  the 
shore.  By  many  such  observations  it  was 
definitely  established  that  exactly  as  the 
amplitude  and  wave-length  increased  did 
the  velocity  also  increase, waves  of  a length 
of  12  feet  from  crest  to  crest  traveling  the 
distance  of  300  feet  in  40  seconds,  or  a 
trifle  more  than  7 feet  in  a second, — being 
more  than  double  the  velocity  of  the  waves 
generated  by  dropping  stones  of  a pound 
weight  into  still  water,  and  more  than 
three  times  the  velocity  of  waves  caused 
by  drops  of  water  falling  into  a bath-tub, 
as  in  my  first  experiment. 

These  facts  were  entirely  conclusive  to 
my  mind  that  I had  struck  the  lead  which 
alone  must  overthrow  and  destroy  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  since  it  was  self- 
evidently  impossible  for  that  theory  to  be 
true,  according  to  these  tests  and  observa- 
tions, unless  it  was  a fact  that  tones  of  a 
low  pitch,  and  having  long  wave-lengths, 
could  be  proved  to  travel  with  many  times 
greater  velocity  than  those  of  a high  pitch 
and  consequent  short  wave-lengths,  which 
the  observation  of  the  whole  world  declares 
to  be  impossible,  no  difference  whatever, 
as  already  shown,  being  observable  be- 
tween them. 

It  now  only  remained  to  test  the  velocity 
of  ocean  billows,  or  waves  having  a length 
from  crest  to  crest  corresponding  to  and 
representing  tones  of  great  depth  of  pitch, 
according  to  the  wave-theory,  such  as  the 
lower  notes  of  the  pianoforte  and  church 
organ.  Accordingly,  I took  up  my  resi- 
dence, for  a period  of  time,  at  Rockaway 
Beach, — 

“On  old  Long  Island's  sea-girt  shore,” 
so  famous  for  its  picturesque  ocean  billows 
and  incessant  surf.  Wind  and  weather 


seemed  to  conspire  to  aid  the  cause  of 
scientific  investigation,  as  they  gave  me 
not  only  waves  of  all  desirable  dimensions, 
but  the  loveliest  temperature  conceivable 
in  which  to  make  my  experimental  obser- 
vations and  measurements. 

By  anchoring  a couple  of  buoys,  200  feet 
apart,  a short  distance  from  the  shore,  and 
in  line  with  the  direction  of  the  approach- 
ing waves,  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  observe 
and  follow  the  progress  of  any  particular 
billow  on  which  the  attention  was  fixed, 
after  it  had  lifted  the  farthest  buoy,  and 
thus  note  the  exact  number  of  seconds 
which  would  elapse  before  it  would  strike 
the  other.  It  was  a source  of  the  deepest 
interest  and  congratulation,  on  the  part  of 
the  writer,  to  watch  from  day  to  day,  as 
the  intensity  of  the  wind  varied,  the  abso- 
lute verification  of  this  important  discov- 
er}'-, as  previously  determined;  for,  as  al- 
ready observed,  the  velocity  of  these  bil- 
lows invariably  increased  with  the  exact 
ratio  of  increase  in  their  size  and  wave- 
length ! 

For  example,  billows  of  about  4 feet 
amplitude  and  from  30  to  35  feet  wave- 
length were  20  seconds  in  traveling  the 
200  feet,  thus  making  their  velocity  10  feet 
in  a second;  while  rollers  8 or  10  feet  high, 
and  with  a wave-length  of  80  or  90  feet 
from  crest  to  crest,  actually  increased  their 
velocity  to  15  or  16  feet  in  a second,  or 
nearly  eight  times  the  velocity  of  the  small 
wavelets  measured  in  my  first  experiment ! 
This  was  enough,  though  it  was  evident 
that, had  I been  able  to  witness  and  meas- 
ure billows  20  to  30  feet  high,  and  with  a 
wave-length  of  over  200  feet,  such  as  often 
occur  in  mid-ocean,  their  velocity  would, 
by  maintaining  this  ratio  of  increase,  no 
doubt  reach  fully  30  feet  in  a second,  or  a 
speed  of  more  than  20  miles  an  hour! 

Now,  with  all  these  facts  just  as  here 
presented, and  which  any  student  of  science 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


323 


can  easily  verify  by  a little  observation 
and  at  no  expense,  what  has  the  advocate 
of  wave-motion,  as  the  scientific  basis  of 
sound-propagation,  to  say?  There  really 
seems  to  be  but  one  single  conclusion  to 
which  any  logical  mind  can  come,  with 
these  indisputable  facts  before  it,  and  that 
is:  As  this  fundamental  principle  of  wave- 
motion  demonstrates  that  the  velocity  of 
a system  of  waves  is  always  in  exact  pro- 
portion to  their  wave-length,  while  the  ve- 
locity of  all  sounds  is  the  same  whether 
their  hypothetic  wave-lengths  are  long  or 
short,  it  follows,  as  a demonstrative  scien- 
tific conclusion,  against  which  no  rebuttal 
can  be  made,  that  sound  does  not  travel 
at  all  by  wave-motion,  and  hence  that  air- 
waves, or  the  supposed  undulatory  motions 
of  any  other  kinds  of  substance  (through 
which  sound  is  known  to  travel  with  great 
facility,  such  as  iron,  glass,  wood,  water, 
&c.),  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  generation  or  propagation  of  sound! 
Does  it  not,  therefore,  follow,  as  the  inev- 
itable result  of  these  experimental  obser- 
vations, here  for  the  first  time  placed  on 
record  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  that  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  in  its  fundamental 
principle  and  most  vital  element,  is  a scien- 
tific mistake  based  on  a complete  misun- 
derstanding of  the  physical  laws? 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  decidedly 
conclusive  results,  I had  the  satisfaction 
of  making  and  recording  another  observa- 
tion while  noting  the  progress  and  velocity 
of  waves  sent  off  from  passing  steamboats, 
which,  though  only  collateral,^  beautifully 
confirmatory  of  the  general  bearing  of  this 
law  against  the  wave-theory  of  sound,  to 
the  consideration  of  which  the  reader’s 
attention  is  especially  invited. 

I ascertained,  by  close  calculation  and 
measurement,  that  waves,  while  near  the 
passing  boat,  or  before  they  had  traveled 
a sufficient  distance  to  expend  much  of 


their  force,  moved  with  considerably  higher 
velocity  than  after  they  had  reached  to  a 
greater  distance.  But  this  proved  to  be 
entirely  consistent  with  the  principle 
evolved  by  the  discovery  of  this  funda- 
mental law,  as  just  explained,  because  the 
velocity  of  waves  must  necessarily  de- 
crease and  their  wave-lengths  contract  or 
shorten  in  the  exact  ratio  as  their  ampli- 
tude becomes  less! 

There  is  no  escape  from  this  rule,  as 
the  reader  no  doubt  already  sees;  for  this 
contraction  of  wave-length  and  this  diminu- 
tion of  velocity  according  to  the  ratio  of 
decrease  in  amplitude  is  strictly  and  philo- 
sophically interdependent,  and  coincides 
with  the  laws  of  wave-motion,  as  here 
evolved.  To  elucidate  the  principle,  it 
is  plain  to  see  if  large  waves  travel  faster 
than  small  ones,  as  my  observations  prove, 
then  it  follows  that  the  front  waves, as  they 
spend  themselves  and  diminish  in  ampli- 
tude, must  necessarily  lose  in  velocity, and, 
in  so  doing,  will  allow  the  waves  in  the 
rear,  of  larger  amplitude,  to  constantly 
gain  on  those  in  front,  thus  shortening 
their  distance  from  each  other.  In  this 
manner  the  diminution  in  velocity  natur- 
ally keeps  pace  with  the  diminution  in 
amplitude,  while  the  two  combined  me- 
chanically result  in  this  proportionate  con- 
traction or  shortening  of  wave-length,  ex- 
actly as  my  observations  have  shown  to  be 
the  case. 

If,  therefore,  there  is  the  least  analogy 
existing  between  actual  wave-motion,  as 
thus  exemplified,  and  sonorous  propaga- 
tion, it  must  be  perfectly  clear  to  a logical 
mind  that  a sound  should  travel  sloicer  and 
slower  the  farther  it  gets  away  from  the  gen- 
erating instrument , while  it  should  also  be- 
come higher  and  higher  in  pitch  by  the  con- 
traction of  its  wave-lengths,  as  this  is  exactly 
the  manner  in  which  water-waves  are  prop- 
aerated!  But  since  it  is  well  known  that 

o 


324 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


sound  retains  the  same  pitch  precisely,  as 
well  as  the  same  velocity,  however  far  its 
range  may  have  extended  from  its  source, 
as  all  observation  proves, it  becomes  anoth- 
er and  collateral  demonstration  that  wave- 
motion  is  in  no  manner  whatever  connected 
with  sonorous  propagation,  and  that  phys- 
icists are  consequently  laboring  under  a 
grievous  philosophical  misapprehension 
in  their  advocacy  of  the  current  theory  of 
sound. 

The  law  thus  discovered — that  all  waves 
travel  with  a velocity  exactly  in  propor- 
tion to  their  size  and  wave-length — not 
only  serves  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  but,  while  doing  so, 
it  beautifully  accounts  for  certain  phenom- 
ena which  have  been  often  observed  but 
never  explained,  and  which  are,  in  fact, 
entirely  inexplicable  except  by  the  key 
thus  brought  to  light. 

Take  the  well-known  fact  that  every 
system  of  normal  water-waves  is  accom- 
panied by  an  occasional  billow  of  very 
much  larger  proportions,  which  can  be 
easily  seen,  at  a considerable  distance, 
looming  up  above  its  fellows.  No  doubt 
the  reader  has  often  observed  this  remark- 
able occurrence,  and  possibly  wondered 
at  the  philosophical  cause.  I will  now 
endeavor  to  explain  the  mystery,  I hope 
satisfactorily,  by  applying  this  fundamental 
law  of  wave-motion  just  laid  down. 

As  it  is  practically  impossible  for  any 
two  waves  to  be  exactly  of  the  same  size, 
— as  it  is  for  any  other  two  objects,  large 
or  small, — it  is  equally  impossible  for  any 
two  waves  to  travel  with  exactly  the  same 
velocity,  since  this  law  proves  that  their 
velocity  must  depend  entirely  upon  their 
size.  Hence,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
any  wave  which  happens  to  be  a small 
fraction  larger  than  the  one  preceding  it 
must  necessarily  gain  slowly  on  the  one 
in  advance,  till  at  last,  overtaking  it,  the 


two  blend  into  a single  wave  of  about 
double  the  normal  size  of  waves  consti- 
tuting that  system. 

The  same  thing  then  continues,  after 
the  two  are  united,  with  increased  accel- 
eration, requiring  less  time  for  this  re- 
enforced billow  to  overtake  the  next  wave 
in  advance,  owing  to  its  increased  ve- 
locity by  such  increase  of  size,  till  at  last 
the  accumulation  results  in  these  tremen- 
dous king-waves,  as  I shall  call  them,  alone 
by  the  action  of  this  elementary  law  of 
wave-motion,  which  thus  again  in  another 
and  unexpected  way  completely  contra- 
venes the  wave-theory  of  sound,  since  no 
such  disproportioned  sound-waves  are  even 
claimed  to  occur  in  sonorous  propagation 
by  any  writer  on  the  subject!  If  sound 
consisted  of  wave-motion  at  all,  or  if  air- 
waves were  possible  as  the  cause  of  sound- 
phenomena,  we  should  certainly  hear  in 
every  sustained  musical  tone  an  occasional 
outburst,  or  sonorous  explosion,  whenever 
one  of  these  atmospheric  king-waves  should 
happen  to  accumulate  and  dash  against 
the  tympanic  membrane!  As  no  such 
sonorous  effects  are  ever  observed,  it  be- 
comes clearly  manifest  that  sound  does 
not  travel  by  means  of  air-waves  at  all,  or 
by  any  principle  analogous  to  undulatory 
motion. 

Thus,  aside  from  the  philosophical  value 
of  a scientific  explanation,  never  before 
attempted,  of  these  natural  phenomena  of 
king-waves , it  strengthens  my  general  ar- 
gument, based  on  this  elementary  law,  by 
showing  that  every  phase  of  true  wave- 
motion  is  essentially  subversive  of  the  cur- 
rent theory  of  sound,  since  it  is  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  all  observed  sonorous 
phenomena.  No  rational  man  can  doubt 
that,  had  Professor  Helmholtz  been  aware 
of  this  law  of  wave-motion  here  demon- 
strated, namely,  that  wave-length  and 
wave-velocity  go  hand  in  hand,  he  must 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


325 


have  unconditionally  abandoned  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  as  a fallacy  of  science, 
and  at  once  have  sought  some  other  hy- 
pothesis for  solving  the  problems  involved 
in  sonorous- propagation.  As  an  honest 
physicist  he  could  not  have  continued  his 
adherence  to  a merely  theoretical  infer- 
ence, after  its  very  foundation  had  been 
swept  away.  In  such  an  emergency,  what 
could  he  have  grasped  as  a basis  of  solu- 
tion save  the  beautiful  and  consistent  hy- 
pothesis of  substantial  sonorous  pulses, 
which  has  been  assumed  and  somewhat 
elaborated  in  the  pages  of  this  monograph, 
and  which  has  never  failed  in  rendering 
satisfactory  explanations  of  all  difficulties 
encountered. 

In  view  of  this  law  of  wave-motion, 
which  so  completely  destroys  even  the 
semblance  of  analogy  between  sonorous 
pulses  and  water-waves,  Professor  Helm- 
holtz surely  can  not  help  seeing  that  fully 
one  half  of  his  great  work  on  sound  is 
thereby  reduced  absolutely  to  waste  paper. 
One  really  can  not  help  sympathizing  with 
a writer  under  such  circumstances.  At 
least  one  half  of  this  wonderful  book,  The 
Sensations  of  Tone, — a work  which  cost  the 
author  so  many  years  of  brain-struggle, 
and  evincing  a profundity  of  thought  and 
mathematical  formularization  without  a 
parallel  in  modern  scientific  research, — is 
based  alone  on  the  fundamental  assump- 
tion, already  quoted,  that  there  is  a com- 
plete similarity — an  absolute  parallel — 
between  the  action  of  sound-waves  and 
water-waves,  which,  by  the  law  thus  dem- 
onstrated, is  mercilessly  scattered  to  the 
four  winds.  No  reader  can  suppose,  for  a 
moment,  that  had  this  great  investigator 
of  science  been  aware  of  this  law  of  wave- 
velocity,  as  so  fully  shown,  that  he  could 
have  repeatedly  declared,  as  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  wave-theory,  that 
water-waves  and  atmospheric  sound-waves 


are  “essentially  identical,”  “precisely  sim- 
ilar,” and  travel  “exactly  in  the  same 
way.”  Evidently  such  language  as  this 
never  could  have  found  a place  in  his 
book,  because  it  would  have  been  devoid 
of  the  slightest  foundation  in  truth,  and 
hence  so  eminent  and  candid  a savant 
as  Professor  Helmholtz  could  not  have 
knowingly  made  these  statements;  and  if 
the  statements  thus  quoted  could  not  be 
truthfully  made,  it  is  plain  to  see  that  the 
wave-theory,  based  upon  them,  can  have 
no  foundation  in  science  or  in  the  physical 
laws. 

Starting  out,  however,  with  an  honest 
mistake,  originating  in  a pure  fallacy  of 
science,  as  the  foundation  of  all  his  future 
reasoning  on  sound-propagation,  he  con- 
sistently built  his  elaborate  castle  in  and 
upon  the  air,  to  be  admired  for  a time  by 
the  physicists  of  the  world  as  a beautiful 
and  marvelous  structure, but  at  last  to  fall 
into  utter  ruin  at  his  feet  by  the  fatal  touch 
of  a single  philosophical  fact!  * 

If  there  was,  therefore,  but  this  one  con- 
clusive argument  against  the  wave-theory, 
— an  argument,  by  the  way,  which  the 
combined  ingenuity  of  the  world  can  nei- 
ther jostle  nor  weaken, — Professor  Huxley 
would  say  to  physicists  that  their  case 
was  hopeless,  and  that  they  might  as  well 
abandon  the  wave-hypothesis  at  once.  His 
words  are  big  with  meaning: — 

“ Every  hypothesis  is  bound  to  explain , or  at  any 
rate  not  to  be  inconsistent  with, the  whole  of  the  fads 
it  professes  to  account  for;  and  if  there  is  a single 
one  of  these  facts  which  can  be  shown  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  (I  do  not  merely  mean  inexplicable  by, 


* Since  this  argument  was  written,  and  mostly  in 
type,  Professor  Robert  Spice,  to  whom  I have  so 
often  been  indebted  for  valuable  suggestions,  has 
called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  law  here 
announced  is  admitted  as  correct  in  a recently  pub- 
lished English  work,  though  no  details  or  measure- 
ments, as  to  the  various  proportions  of  wave  length 
and  velocity,  are  given. 


326 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


but  contrary  to)  the  hypothesis,  such  hypothesis  falls 
to  the  ground — it  is  worth  nothing.  One  fact  with 
which  it  is  positively  inconsistent  is  worth  as  much, 
and  is  as  powerful  in  negativing  the  hypothesis,  as 
five  hundred.” — Huxley,  Lectures  on  the  Origin 
of  Species , p.  140. 

A truer  and  more  concise  rule  of  logic 
never  was  written.  But  if  a single  fact  in- 
consistent with  an  hypothesis  is  sufficient 
to  break  it  down,  how  irretrievably  must 
the  wave-theory  have  fallen  to  the  ground 
when  not  a single  fact  or  phenomenon  in 
connection  with  the  whole  subject  is  found 
to  be  in  its  favor?  On  the  contrary, every 
fact  examined,  and  scores  of  others  not 
touched  upon  in  this  monograph,  point 
exactly  in  the  opposite  direction.  It  seems 
wholly  inconceivable  that  such  an  array  of 
pertinent  considerations  should  conspire 
to  break  down  the  wave-theory,  and  yet 
that  it,  with  all  its  absurdities  and  self- 
contradictions,  should  be  the  true  solution 
of  the  sound-problem! 

If  these  facts  have  really  driven  the 
wave-theory  of  sound  to  the  wall,  and  de- 
monstrated it  to  be  a scientific  fallacy, 
there  is  not  a scientist  who  would  not  be 
willing  to  admit  that  the  undulatory  the- 
ories of  light  and  heat  are  involved  in  the 
same  catastrophe, and  must  share  the  same 
demolition,  without  striking  them  a blow, 


since  it  was  only  the  sound-theory,  as  uni- 
versally held,  which  led  to  the  invention 
of  ether , by  which  light  as  well  as  heat 
could  be  construed  into  some  kind  of  un- 
dulatory mode  of  motion.  As  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  — the  very  foundation  of 
ether  and  ethereal  undulations — has  been 
shattered,  it  is  clear  to  see  that  the  super- 
structures reared  upon  it  must  necessarily 
fall  to  the  ground. 

In  conclusion,  I am  well  aware  that  to 
proclaim  the  overthrow  of  a universally 
accepted  hypothesis,  such  as  this  of  the 
undulatory  theory  of  sound,  which  has 
stood  the  test  of  scientific  investigation 
for  hundreds  of  years,  and  which  has 
never,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  been 
called  in  question  by  a single  physicist,  or 
even  for  a moment  doubted,  has  a pre- 
sumptuous look  on  its  very  face, — amount- 
ing, it  must  be  confessed,  almost  if  not 
quite  to  audacity.  But  the  facts,  figures, 
and  arguments,  are  here  spread  out,  some- 
what hurriedly,  before  the  reader,  while 
the  appeal  is  now  distinctly  made  to  scien- 
tific thinkers  and  investigators  either  to 
show  to  the  world  that  the  considerations 
presented  against  the  theory  are  erroneous 
or  else  to  acknowledge  their  correctness, 
which  I doubt  not  they  will  cheerfully  do. 


NOTE  ON  THE  ANTENN/E  OF  THE  MOSQUITO. 

Comments  on  the  Hypothesis  of  Professor  Mayer,  as  Published  in  the 
“American  Journal  of  Science.” 


At  pages  195,  196,  &c.,  as  the  reader 
will  recollect,  I had  occasion  to  examine 
the  question  of  the  unisonant  vibration  of 
the  antennae  or  so-called  “auditory  hairs” 
of  certain  invertebrates,  such  as  those  of 
the  my  sis  or  opossum-shrimp ; and  assumed, 
in  opposition  to  Professor  Helmholtz  and 
other  physicists,  that  any  vibratory  motion 


observed  in  such  organs  as  the  effect  of 
sound  must  be  regarded  as  simply  reactive 
instead  of  unisonant , being  first  heard  by 
the  animal  through  the  proper  auditory 
organs,  without  any  motion  whatever  oi 
such  parts,  and  then  reflected  back  upon 
these  antennae  orfibrillae  through  the  nerv- 
ous system  of  the  creature,  thus  causing 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


327 


the  tremor  which  is  noticed  by  experi- 
menters as  the  supposed  direct  result  of 
unisonant  action. 

This  principle  was  illustrated  by  the 
reaction  of  sense-impressions  causing  sub- 
jective effects  on  different  parts  of  the 
human  organism,  just  as  certain  sounds, 
after  being  heard, — the  filing  of  a saw, 
or  some  peculiar  scraping  movement  of  a 
slate-pencil,  for  instance, — will  often  react 
through  the  nervous  system  unpleasantly 
upon  the  teeth,  and,  with  some  tempera- 
ments, so  set  them  on  edge  as  to  be  almost 
unendurable.  No  one,  of  course,  would 
suppose  that  such  impression  on  the  teeth 
could  occur  from  the  direct  or  objective 
action  of  sound-pulses,  since  a deaf  person 
would  perceive  no  such  effect.  This  pe- 
culiar sensation  can  only  be  felt  when  the 
tone  producing  it  has  first  passed  to  the 
brain  through  the  proper  auditory  appa- 
ratus, and  then  reacted  through  another 
system  of  sense-nerves  back  upon  the 
teeth.  Such  reactive  connection  between 
the  teeth  and  the  organs  of  audition  is 
abundantly  confirmed  by  the  well-known 
experiment  among  dentists  by  which  a 
violent  toothache  can  be  entirely  checked 
for  a number  of  seconds  by  pricking  or 
pinching  certain  portions  of  the  ear. 

The  truth  is,  no  one,  after  a moment’s 
reflection,  will  deny  the  correctness  of  the 
reactive  principle  here  assumed  as  the  most 
probable  explanation  of  these  tremulous 
movements  of  so-called  “auditory  hairs.” 
To  ignore  the  fact  that  certain  external 
organs  can  be  thrown  into  violent  agita- 
tion as  the  effect  of  sound  reacting  through 
the  nervous  system,  after  it  has  been  heard, 
would  be  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  common- 
est experiences  of  human  life.  What  reader 
has  not  seen  nervous  persons  so  startled 
by  a sharp  and  unexpected  sound  that  their 
hands  would  quiver  and  the  whole  frame 
tremble  for  some  seconds  after  the  shock  ? 


To  attribute  this  vibratory  motion  of  the 
hands  and  fingers  to  the  direct  ox  unisonant 
action  of  sound,  as  the  reasoning  of  phys- 
icists would  necessarily  imply,  instead  of 
its  reactive  effect  through  the  nerves  after 
the  auditory  organs  had  performed  their 
part  of  the  work,  would  be  to  trifle  with 
reason  and  stultify  common  sense,  since, 
as  before  remarked,  a deaf  person,  how- 
ever nervous,  would,  of  course,  experience 
no  such  tremor  of  the  fingers  from  sonorous 
shocks,  however  sharp. 

While  discussing  this  subject,  in  the  fifth 
chapter,  I gave  what  I still  consider  good 
and  sufficient  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
possibility  of  such  a thing  as  microscopical 
fibrils  vibrating  in  unison  to  different  sounds 
of  the  musical  scale,  since  to  be  suscep- 
tible of  such  vibration  (unless  forced  by 
very  close  contact),  a string,  rod,  or  fibril 
must  itself  be  capable  of  producing  that 
vibrational  number,  if  plucked,  which  its 
length,  weight,  and  rigidity,  absolutely 
forbid. 

Since  those  suggestions  were  in  print  I 
have  read  a carefully  prepared  article  by 
Professor  Mayer,  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Science,  for  August,  1874,  which  had 
escaped  my  notice,  in  which  he  labors  to 
show  that  the  male  culex  or  common  mos- 
quito hears  sounds  in  the  same  way  as  de- 
scribed in  the  case  of  the  mysis,  by  means 
of  the  variously  tuned  fibrils  of  his  antennae 
vibrating  sympathetically  to  tones  of  va- 
rious degrees  of  pitch,  and  that  by  this 
means  he  is  enabled  to  hear  the  female 
mosquito , and  thus  direct  his  course  toward 
her  in  the  dark ! 

As  this  exposition  of  the  auditory  ap- 
paratus of  the  culex,  given  by  Professor 
Mayer,  involves  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
whole  philosophy  of  audition  and  aural 
anatomy  formulated  by  Professor  Helm- 
holtz as  the  basis  of  the  wave-theory  of 
sourtd,  I propose  to  give  a few  moments 


328 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


to  the  considerations  adduced  in  favor  of 
such  microscopical  unisonant  vibration. 

I could  entertain  the  reader  with  nu- 
merous interesting  quotations  from  this 
ably  written  article,  but  will  only  make 
one  or  two  brief  extracts,  to  convey  an 
idea  of  the  general  drift  of  the  positions 
assumed.  After  experimenting  with  the 
antennae  of  several  mosquitoes,  under  the 
microscope,  and  observing  the  action  of 
their  fibrillae  while  sounding  a number  of 
differently  tuned  forks,  Professor  Mayer 
remarks : — 

‘‘Experiments  similar  to  those  already  given 
revealed  a fibril  tuned  to  such  perfect  unison  with 
Ut3  [one  of  Konig’s  tuning-forks]  that  it  vibrated 
through  1 8 divisions  of  the  micrometer,  or '15  mm., 
while  its  amplitude  of  vibration  was  only  3 divisions 
when  Uti  was  sounded.  Other  fibrils  responded 
to  other  notes,  so  that  I infer  from  my  experiments 
on  about  a dozen  mosquitoes,  that  their  fibrils  are 
tuned  to  sounds  extending  through  the  middle  and 
next  higher  octave  of  the  piano." 

“ The  song  of  the  female  vibrates  the  fibrillae  of 
one  of  the  antennae  more  forcibly  than  those  of  the 
other.  . . . The  mosquito  now  turns  his  body  in  the 
direction  of  that  antenna  whose  fibrils  are  most 
affected,  and  thus  gives  greater  intensity  to  the  vi- 
brations of  the  fibrils  of  the  other  antenna.  When 
he  has  thus  brought  the  vibrations  of  the  antennae 
to  equality  of  intensity,  he  has  placed  his  body  in 
the  direction  of  the  radiation  of  the  sound,  and  he 
directs  his  flight  accordingly ; and,  from  my  exper- 
iments, it  would  appear  that  he  can  thus  guide  him- 
self to  within  50  of  the  direction  of  the  female." 

It  seems  exceedingly  strange,  not  to  use 
a stronger  word,  that  it  never  should  have 
occurred  to  so  careful  an  investigator  of 
science  to  first  kill  the  mosquito  before 
making  observations  upon  this  supposed 
sympathetic  vibration  of  its  fibrillae,  as 
was  suggested  in  the  case  of  the  shrimp, 
which  could  have  been  so  easily  done 
while  the  insect  was  secured  under  the 
microscope,  by  a little  carbonic  acid  gas 
or  by  some  other  means,  without  marring 
the  form  of  a single  fibril ! Instead  of  such 
a practical  and  fundamental  thought  oc- 


curring to  this  eminent  physicist,  he  is  par- 
ticularly careful,  in  every  instance,  to  in- 
form the  reader  that  he  employed  a“live” 
mosquito  on  which  to  experiment! 

If  his  hypothesis  of  the  unisonant  vibra- 
tion of  a certain  fibril  through  18  divisions 
of  the  micrometer  to  the  tone  of  Ut3  is 
based  on  science,  surely  that  particular 
fibril  would  have  responded  exactly  the 
same  afterlife  was  extinct,  if  not  disturbed 
structurally,  or  else  it  did  not  vibrate  uni- 
sonantly  in  the  “live”  insect!  Any  organ 
vibrating  by  sympathy  to  a Ut3  fork  does  so 
because  such  unison  body  has  a vibrational 
number  corresponding  to  that  of  the  exciting 
tone , which,  of  course,  depends  entirely 
upon  its  size,  weight,  and  rigidity,  and 
not  upon  the  fact  of  the  animal  possessing 
such  organ  being  either  alive  or  dead!  If 
Professor  Mayer  should  find,  on  trying 
“about  a dozen”  of  such  lifeless  mosqui- 
toes with  tuning-forks  ranging  through  the 
entire  register  of  the  two  octaves  of  the 
pianoforte,  that  not  a single  fibril  could  be 
made  to  stir, — as  I predict,  on  general 
scientific  principles, must  be  the  case, — he 
would  at  once  see  that  all  this  reasoning 
about  the  sympathetic  vibration  of  micro- 
scopical organs  was  a fundamental  philo- 
sophical mistake;  and  hence, that  the  sup- 
posed acoustical  structure  of  the  ear,  in- 
cluding Corti’s  rods,  as  supporting  the 
wave-theory  of  sound,  must  be  simply 
visionary,  having  no  correct  basis  in  true 
science. 

In  such  a contingency,  there  would  be 
no  conceivable  explanation  possible,  as  I 
doubt  not  Professor  Mayer  would  admit, 
save  the  one  given  in  Chapter  V.,  already 
referred  to,  that  all  such  tremors  of  the 
antennae  and  fibrillae  of  invertebrated  ani- 
mals, as  the  result  of  tone,  is  a reactive  or 
subjective  effect, — the  tone  reflecting,  as 
it  were,  through  the  nerves  of  such  animal 
organism  back  upon  its  external  organs. 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


329 


I thus  venture  the  hypothesis,  without 
trying  a single  experiment  or  knowing  a 
thing  about  it  except  from  my  own  reason- 
ins,  that  the  antennae  or  fibrillae  of  no  dead 
insect  or  crustacean  will  ever  respond  sym- 
pathetically in  the  slightest  degree  to  a 
tone  when  the  vibrating  body  is  a sufficient 
distance  away  to  prevent  the  incidental  dis- 
turbance of  the  air  from  blowing  them,  say, 
a distance  of  four  or  five  feet. 

Although  the  position  here  assumed  is 
not  necessarily  vital  to  my  argument 
against  the  wave-theory  of  sound, — that 
depending  upon  numerous  direct  consid- 
erations heretofore  advanced, — I never- 
theless give  it  a prominent  place  in  the 
investigation  of  the  collateral  reasoning 
of  physicists  upon  questions  which  are 
essential  to  the  general  correctness  of  their 
hypothesis;  and  I earnestly  trust  that  these 
writers  on  sound  will  fairly  test  this  ques- 
tion of  the  unisonant  vibration  of  antennae 
on  dead  insects,  and  if  I am  mistaken  in 
my  hypothetic  reasoning  on  the  subject, 
they  are  at  full  liberty,  of  course,  to  show 
me  no  mercy,  as  I surely  do  not  deserve 
quarter  when  I refuse  to  give  it. 

It  is  a matter  of  astonishment,  beyond 
words  to  express,  as  intimated  when  dis- 
cussing Corti’s  arches,  that  physicists  uni- 
versally ignore  this  simple  but  funda- 
mental acoustical  law — that  a rod  secured 
at  one  end,  in  order  to  be  capable  of  vi- 
brating sympathetically  in  response  to  a 
tone  of  any  determinate  pitch,  must,  on 
being  plucked,  have  the  same  vibrational 
number,  or  swing  with  the  same  normal 
periodicity,  as  the  body  producing  the  ex- 
citing tone;  and  that  in  order  to  thus  cor- 
respond in  vibrational  number,  its  length, 
weight,  and  rigidity  must  at  least  approx- 
imately agree  with  those  of  the  exciting 
instrument.  Instead  of  taking  this  essen- 
tial and  elementary  acoustical  condition 
into  the  account,  which,  it  would  seem, 


ought  to  be  the  first  thing  a physicist  would 
think  of,  Professor  Mayer,  following  the 
example  of  Professor  Helmholtz,  assumes 
that  a microscopical  fibril  on  one  of  the 
antennae  of  a mosquito  may  be  “tuned  to 
such  perfect  unison ” as  to  respond  to  the 
middle  A of  the  pianoforte,  which,  under 
the  experience  and  skill  of  the  best  musical 
instrument  makers,  requires  for  its  tone  a 
string  or  rod  at  least  several  hundred  times 
longer  than  the  fibril  in  question  ! 

This  amazing  absence  of  what  I am 
compelled  to  call  scientific  perspicacity,  in 
thus  ignoring  one  of  the  most  vital  and 
fundamental  principles  of  acoustics,  seems 
to  be  but  another  illustration  of  what  I 
have  before  referred  to  as  the  misguiding 
tendency  of  a false  theory,  even  upon  the 
greatest  of  intellects,  when  it  once  comes 
to  be  generally  adopted  as  science. 

If  Professor  Mayer  really  desires  the 
world  to  place  the  least  faith  in  his*  scien- 
tific “discoveries”  that  the  microscopical 
fibrils  of  a mosquito’s  antennae  are  actually 
“tuned  to  such  perfect  unison”  with  cer- 
tain tones  of  the  musical  scale  as  to  vibrate 
sympathetically  when  the  corresponding 
tuning-forks  are  sounded,  I insist  that  he 
shall  experiment  upon  dead  mosquitoes 
instead  of  “live”  ones;  and  if  he  shall 
then  fail  to  make  a single  “auditory  hair” 
fall  into  unisonant  vibration,  I shall  claim 
that  my  “discoveries”  in  regard  to  nervous 
reaction,  “which  I imagine  are  entirely 
new,”  have  laid  the  true  physiological  and 
acoustical  foundation  for  scientifically  ex- 
plaining the  phenomena  in  question. 

As  a proof  that  the  tremulous  action  of 
that  particular  fibril  observed  by  Professor 
Mayer,  under  the  microscope,  and  to  which 
he  specifically  refers,  was  not  utiisonant  but 
reactive , we  have  the  fact,  stated  in  his 
own  words,  as  just  quoted,  that  with  one 
fork,  Ut3,  it  vibrated  through  18,  and  with 
Ut4  through  3 divisions  of  the  micrometer; 


330 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


whereas  I now  assert  that  a sounding  body 
of  any  kind  which  would  sympathetically 
vibrate  in  full  unison  to  Uta,  as  did  this 
fibril,  would  not  respond  at  all  to  another 
fork  as  much  out  of  unison  as  Ut4  would 
be ! This  alone  shows  that  the  observed 
motion  of  this  fibril  was  not  the  effect  of 
unisonant  or  sympathetic  vibration  at  all, 
but  must  be  accounted  for  on  some  other 
hypothesis ! 

Of  course,  all  this  reasoning  about  the 
sympathetic  vibration  of  these  microscop- 
ical organs  of  insects,  or  the  same  kind  of 
reasoning  by  Professor  Helmholtz  in  re- 
gard to  Corti’s  rods  in  his  analytical  in- 
vestigation of  the  human  ear,  is  simply  in- 
tended to  r'e-enforce  the  wave-theory  of 
sound,  and  logically  grows  out  of  that 
general  assumption.  These  far-fetched 
attempts,  however,  to  show  the  periodic 
effects  of  air-waves  on  such  microscopical 
organs  are  entirely  unnecessary  in  order 
to  account  for  the  auditory  powers  of  ani- 
mals, either  large  or  small. 

It  seems  singular,  to  say  the  least,  that 
a male  mosquito  in  the  dark  is  obliged  to 
follow  the  direction  indicated  by  the  sym- 
pathetically vibrating  fibrils  of  its  antennae 
in  order  to  reach  within  five  degrees  of  the 
singing  female,  when  other  animals,  large 
and  small,  are  capable  of  reaching  their 
mates  in  a bee-line,  in  the  darkest  night, 
alone  from  listening  to  their  cries,  without 
the  sympathetic  vibration  of  any  system 
of  antennae  having  fibrils  tuned  to  two 
octaves  of  the  pianoforte! 

It  is  true  Professor  Mayer  anticipates 
this  objection,  and  attempts  to  meet  it  by 
assuming  that  other  animals  can  turn  their 
heads  and  shift  their  external  ears  so  as 
to  catch  the  direction  of  the  sound  by  its 
varying  intensity,  as  first  one  ear  and  then 
the  other  is  employed;  just  as  if  a mos- 
quito could  not  turn  its  head  or  its  whole 
body,  or  shift  its  antennae  for  that  matter, 


in  various  directions,  for  the  same  purpose, 
— that  is,  supposing  these  antennae  to  be 
really  auditory  organs  which  take  the  place 
of  ordinary  ears,  which  they  may  be,  but 
which  I neither  affirm  nor  deny.  Professor 
Helmholtz,  in  maintaining  the  unisonant 
vibration  of  such  auditory  hairs,  claims 
their  office  to  be  the  same  in  these  lower 
animals  as  the  Corti  rods  are  in  the  higher 
species.  But  all  this  reasoning  is  forced, 
and  falls  vastly  short  of  meeting  this  mos- 
quito problem,  since  a hawk,  by  the  sense 
of  hearing  alone,  without  external  ears  to 
shift,  by  simply  turning  its  head  or  body 
to  determine  the  proper  line,  can  direct 
its  course  to  within  a good  deal  less  than 
five  degrees  of  the  singing  bobolink,  as 
it  often  does  this  when  its  prey  is  com- 
pletely hidden  from  sight  by  dense  foliage. 
Yet  C.  Hasse,  the  eminent  histologist  and 
microscopist, assures  us, as  already  quoted, 
that  the  ears  of  birds  are  entirely  destitute  of 
Corti' s rods! 

Thus,  the  “discoveries”  of  Professor 
Mayer,  which  he  says  “ I imagine  are  en- 
tirely new,”  are  proved  to  be  “entirely” 
worthless,  since  a male  mosquito  ought  to 
be  able  to  hear  the  female  and  find  his 
way  to  her  in  the  dark  without  the  uniso- 
nant vibration  of  its  fibrils,  if  a hawk  can 
perform  as  difficult  a task  without  either 
antennae  or  Corti’s  rods  to  vibrate  sympa- 
thetically ! 

Instead  of  allowing  the  male  mosquito 
to  hear  sound,  in  a common-sense  way,  by 
the  direct  action  of  the  sonorous  pulses 
falling  upon  his  auditory  organs,  whatever 
they  may  be,  and  thus  directly  communi- 
cating the  sensation,  as  to  the  direction  of 
the  sounding  body,  to  the  nerve-center, 
Professor  Mayer  complicates  the  whole 
process  immensely,  and  more  than  triples 
the  amount  of  geometrical  calculation 
which  this  insect  is  obliged  to  make  over 
ordinary  animals  before  it  can  determine, 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


33 1 


after  a sound-pulse  strikes  it,  which  way 
to  steer!  As  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
this  statement,  sefe  the  last  citation,  in 
which  this  eminent  authority  assures  us 
that  the  sound  of  the  female  first  shakes, 
by  sympathetic  vibration, a properly  tuned 
fibril  on  one  of  the  male’s  antennae  which 
happens  to  be  turned  in  the  direction  of 
such  sound.  The  male  culex,  perceiving 
this  sensation  of  the  vibratory  motion  of 
that  particular  fibril,  first  locates  it  prop- 
erly on  this  antenna,  and  then  commences 
a course  of  geometrical  calculation  to  as- 
certain which  way  to  turn  his  body  in  order 
to  allow  the  properly  tuned  fibril  on  the 
other  antenna  to  receive  a like  sympathetic 
impulse.  After  this  has  been  telegraphed 
to  and  from  the  nerve-center  of  the  insect, 
the  turning  process  commences,  the  mos- 
quito in  the  mean  time  noting  the  gradual 
bringing  into  equal  sympathetic  play  the 
properly  tuned  fibrils  of  both  of  the  an- 
tennae, and,  by  a difficult  mechanical  and 
mathematical  course  of  reasoning,  finally 
determines  the  exact  point  in  the  circle, 
“when  he  has  brought  the  vibrations  of 
the  antennae  to  equality  of  intensity” ! When 
the  two  unison  fibrillae  are  thus  made  to 
vibrate  with  “equality  of  intensity,”  the 
fact  is  again  communicated  through  this 
system  of  nerves  to  the  seat  of  intelligence, 
where  the  operation  is  analyzed,  and  the 
decision  then  transmitted  through  another 
set  of  nerves  to  the  muscles  and  ligaments 
of  the  wings,  which  finally  put  into  execu- 
tion the  complete  result  of  the  routine  of 
ganglionic  processes,  by  which  the  insect 
is  enabled  to  guide  “himself  to  within  f3  of 
the  direction  of  the  female” ! 

Now,  if  all  this  mechanical  and  geomet- 
rical ratiocination  and  acoustical  analysis, 
and  all  this  repeated  telegraphing  back 
and  forth  through  different  systems  of 
nerves,  must  be  gone  through  with  by  a 
male  mosquito  before  he  can  determine 


within  five  degrees  “the  direction  of  the 
female,”  when  a hawk  can  instantly  fix 
the  direction  of  an  object  it  seeks  by  sim- 
ply hearing  its  sound,  without  any  uniso- 
nant vibration  whatever, either  of  antennae 
or  Corti’s  rods,  I am  at  a loss  to  see  any 
practical  or  rational  purpose  in  this  almost 
infinitely  more  complex  and  ingeniously 
constructed  organism  of  the  culex,  unless 
it  be  the  work  of  an  intelligent  Creator, 
designed  especially  to  convince  physicists 
and  naturalists  of  His  existence! 

Would  it  not  be  a much  more  reasonable 
assumption  than  this  supposed  sympathetic 
action  of  fibrillae,  though  perhaps  not  so 
“entirely  new,”  that  one  mosquito  finds 
another  in  the  dark  by  the  sense  of  smell, 
on  the  same  general  principles  by  which 
it  directs  its  course  within  the  hundredth 
part  of  a degree  toward  the  tip  of  a sleep- 
ing man’s  nose?  If  it  could  be  shown  by 
Professor  Mayer  that  mosquitoes  only 
annoy  sleepers  who  snore , it  might  tend  to 
corroborate  his  ttnisonant  hypothesis!  But 
the  strict  impartiality  of  such  nocturnal 
visits,  and  the  known  capacity  of  the  culex 
genus  for  finding  almost  any  exposed 
square  inch  of  a man’s  body,  however  dark 
the  night,  independently  of  any  such  direct- 
ing unisonant  capillary  apparatus  as  sym- 
pathetically vibrating  fibrillae  tuned  to  two 
octaves  of  the  pianoforte,  go  strongly  to 
demonstrate  the  inutility,  to  say  the  least, 
of  any  such  a harp  of  a thousand  strings 
in  aiding  this  dipterous  proboscidian  to 
find  his  musical  mate ! 

But  if  a mosquito  determines  the  direc- 
tion of  a sound  by  the  sympathetic  vibra- 
tion of  certain  fibrils  on  one  or  both  of  its 
antennae,  as  Professor  Mayer  supposes,  I 
would  like  to  inquire  of  this  high  authority 
how  the  insect  knows  when  a particular  fibril 
has  been  put  into  motion?  It  surely  does 
not  hear  it  vibrate,  for  that  would  imply 
that  it  had  an  auditory  apparatus  inde- 


332 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


pendent  of  these  fibrillas  sufficient  for  all 
practical  purposes.  It  can  not  see  such 
vibratory  motion,  for  this  is  supposed  to 
take  place  in  the  dark.  Besides,  if  the 
male  culex  could  see  the  motion  of  one  of 
his  own  microscopical  fibrils,  he  ought  to 
be  able  to  see  the  female!  He  must, there- 
fore, depend  alone  upon  the  sense  of  feel- 
ing for  a knowledge  of  this  vibratory  mo- 
tion, whenever  it  occurs, as  Professor  Mayer 
would  no  doubt  admit. 

Now,  to  hear  by  feeling  is  about  as  anom- 
alous an  operation,  and  about  as  much  a 
perversion  of  Nature’s  laws,  as  to  see  by 
smelling , or  to  taste  moonshine ! Aside,  how- 
ever, from  this  novel  and  absurd  trans- 
formation and  metamorphosis  of  the  five 
senses,  it  is  evident,  if  the  motion  of  any 
particular  fibril  is  felt  by  the  mosquito, 
that  such  fibril  must  have  a tactile  nerve 
passing  through  it;  and  as  there  are  sev- 
eral hundreds  of  these  fibrils  projecting 
from  the  antennae  of  a single  mosquito,  it 
involves  the  enormous  and  extravagant 
waste  of  Nature’s  most  precious  materials 
in  thus  distributing  hundreds  of  nerves 
belonging  to  one  sense  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  accomplishing  the  work  of  another! 
Why  should  Nature  arrange  four  hundred 
tactile  nerve-branches,  extending  through 
these  fibrillae,  for  the  purpose  of  commu- 
nicating to  the  ganglionic  center  of  this 
insect  the  sensation  of  tone  by  feeling, 
when  a single  auditory  nerve , properly 
brought  to  the  surface  of  some  part  of  the 
male  mosquito’s  body,  would  have  been 
amply  sufficient  to  receive  the  substantial 
sonorous  pulses  of  the  female’s  music,  as 
the  corpuscular  hypothesis  so  rationally 
supposes? 

Such  an  operation  as  this  is  surely  no 
more  wonderful  nor  inconceivable  than 
the  analogous  fact, which  Professor  Mayer 
can  not  ignore,  that  this  same  mosquito 
has  evidently  located  on  some  part  of  its 


head  or  body  an  olfactory  7ierve-membrane 
which  is  capable  of  receiving  the  almost 
infinitely  attenuated  corpuscles  of  odor 
emanating  from  some  other  living  animal, 
by  which  the  sensation  of  smell  is  instantly 
transmitted  to  the  seat  of  intelligence,  and 
there  translated  not  only  into  the  know- 
ledge of  the  proper  direction  of  the  odorous 
body,  but  is  also  resolved  into  such  infor- 
mation as  enables  the  insect  to  decide  the 
character  of  the  object  smelt,  whether  it  is 
favorable  or  unfavorable  to  its  sanguiniv- 
erous  appetite, without  any  vibratory  motion 
whatever! 

These  two  senses  of  smell  and  hearing 

o 

are  thus  more  than  ordinarily  analogous. 
I insist  that,  to  a logical  philosophical 
mind,  the  bare  fact  of  imponderable  and 
infinitesimal  granules  of  odor,  by  simple 
contact  with  an  olfactory  nerve-membrane, 
being  capable  of  conveying  definite  and 
complex  intelligence  to  the  brain  of  a liv- 
ing creature,  without  any  oscillatory  motion 
of  the  air  or  of  such  nerve-membrane,  ought 
to  be  regarded  as  proof  positive  that 
acoustical  impressions  are  made  upon  their 
appropriate  nerve,  and  conveyed  through 
it  to  the  seat  of  intelligence  in  a similar 
way, — by  the  absolute  contact  of  substan- 
tial sonorous  corpuscles,  without  the  aid 
of  vibratory  motion ! 

How  it  is  possible  for  a thoughtful  scien- 
tific investigator,  after  the  subject  has  been 
brought  to  his  attention,  to  believe,  as  he 
is  obliged  to  do,  in  this  manifest  and  ac- 
knowledged action  of  odor,  and  grasp  the 
beautiful  and  consistent  manner  in  which 
its  impressions  are  received  and  analyzed, 
alone  by  corpuscular  contact,  and  then  in- 
stantly trample  down  all  analogy  and  uni- 
formity in  Nature’s  laws  by  abandoning 
corpuscular  action  and  resorting  to  wave- 
motion,  requires  more  than  human  ingenu- 
ity to  divine!  It  seems  to  the  writer  that 
this  analogical  consideration,  when  prop- 


Chap.  VI. 


The  Nature  of  Sound. 


333 


erly  investigated  and  understood,  ought  to 
be  alone  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  and  at  once  to  establish 
in  its  stead  the  corpuscular  hypothesis  as 
rthe  only  consistent  solution  of  sound- 
phenomena,  unless  we  admit  that  logic 
and  reason  have  been  banished  from  the 
earth. 

Professor  Tyndall  refers  approvingly  to 
the  course  of  reasoning  by  which  an  able 
physicist,  in  the  time  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
logically  met  and  overthrew  his  emission 
hypothesis  of  light,  and  by  which,  as  a 
strong  analogical  argument, the  undulatory 
theory  of  light  was  aided  if  not  finally  es- 
tablished, till  Newton  himself  was  com- 
pelled to  accept  and  advocate  it.  It  was 
in  this  way:  Let  it  be  first  understood  that 
there  was  not  a single  scientist  at  that  time 
who  questioned  the  truth  of  the  wave-theory 
of  sound.  Such  a thought  had  never  oc- 
curred to  Newton  or  to  any  one  else, so  far 
as  history  records.  Hence, the  wave-theory 
of  sonorous  propagation  was  accepted,  as 
a matter  of  course,  as  true  science  and  as 
common  ground  upon  which  no  dispute  or 
even  doubt  existed.  The  argument,  then, 
against  the  emission-theory  of  light  was 
like  this:  Is  it  reasonable  that  sound,  the 
first  sensation  above  odor , should  depart 
from  the  law  of  corpuscular  contact  and 
be  produced  by  wave-motion,  as  all  admit, 
and  then  that  light,  the  next  sensation 
above  sound,  should  abruptly  return  to 
this  same  law  of  corpuscular  contact  which 
governs  smell,  rather  than  continue  on  as 
an  undulatory  motion  of  some  sort  of  at- 
tenuated substance  such  as  ether  was  as- 
sumed to  be?  On  the  basis  of  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound  being  admitted  as  science, 
this  logical  mode  of  reasoning  was  simply 
irresistible.  Newton  and  his  coadjutors 


could  not  withstand  it,  and  hence  the  emis- 
sion theory  of  light  fell  to  the  ground,  as  it 
ought  to  have  done  with  such  scientific 
data  as  a foundation. 

But  think  of  the  disaster  which  would 
have  befallen  his  antagonists,  had  Newton 
been  able  to  grasp  the  beautiful  and  har- 
monious consistency  of  Nature’s  laws,  and 
to  have  hurled  back  upon  their  heads  their 
own  inevitable  logic,  re-enforced  by  the 
corpuscular  hypothesis  of  sound?  By 
simply  appropriating  their  own  argument, 
strengthened  by  a single  modern  improve- 
ment, he  could  have  not  only  prevented 
the  destruction  of  his  emission-theory  of 
light,  but  could  have  at  once  established 
the  corpuscular  theory  of  sound,  thereby 
framing  a consistent  and  uniform  con- 
tinuity in  the  nature  and  mode  of  opera- 
tion of  all  the  senses,  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest,  as  so  fully  illustrated  at  the 
close  of  the  fifth  chapter. 

The  time,  however,  had  not  yet  come, 
and  the  age  was  not  yet  sufficiently  ripe, 
for  so  radical  and  revolutionary  a move 
as  the  overthrow  of  the  universally  ac- 
cepted wave-theory  of  sound,  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  corpuscular  hypothesis 
upon  its  ruins.  I can  not  believe,  from 
the  arguments  and  considerations  massed 
in  this  review,  that  it  would  be  manifesting 
unjustifiable  confidence  in  their  unanswer- 
able character,  to  assert  that  the  time  for 
such  a scientific  revolution  has  at  last 
come;  and  that,  could  the  great  Newton 
be  permitted  to  look  down  from  his  higher 
sphere  upon  the  progressive  strides  scien- 
tific investigations  are  making,  and  behold 
the  tables  turned  Upon  the  logic  which 
trailed  the  banner  of  his  emission-theory 
in  the  dust,  he  would  now  have  his  re- 
venge. 


jggT’See  Note  on  Telephone  and  Phonograph,  page  523. 


334 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


ADDENDA  TO  CHAPTER  VI. 


Having,  by  this  long  digression, 

In  reviewing  Nature’s  problems, 

And  by  argument,  endeavored 
Through  this  hurried  glance  at  science 
To  impress  upon  the  reader  5 

That  we  are  involved  in  forces 
And  mysterious  “ Modes  of  Motion  ” 

Like  a network  woven  round  us 
Which  are  nothing  less  than  substance 
Or  corpuscular  emissions  10 

Circulating  through  all  bodies 
By  unknown  diffusive  action, 

May  we  not — with  such  profusion 
Of  existences  around  us, 

Though  intangible  to  senses  15 

Yet  as  entities  substantial — 

Grasp  the  great  essential  idea 

Of  the  entity  of  spirit 

And  the  soul’s  substantial  essence, 

By  the  side  of  which  all  science  20 

And  its  physical  discoveries 
“Pale  their  ineffectual  fires” 

And  become  but  puerile  trifles? 

For  if  light  and  sound  are  substance 
Or  attenuated  matter,  25 

As  so  clearly  demonstrated 
In  the  three  preceding  chapters, 

Which  can  permeate  the  densest, 

Most  impervious  of  bodies, 

Such  as  diamond,  gold,  and  granite,  30 
May  not  spirit  be  a substance 
Far  beyond  the  comprehension 
Or  the  tangible  conception 
Of  our  gross  material  senses, 

With  a texture  far  more  subtile  35 

Than  an  incorporeal  substance 
Such  as  sound  or  gravitation, 

Light  or  heat  or  magnetism, 

Having  body,  parts,  and  passions, 

Even  after  dissolution,  40 

Capable  of  all  the  feelings — 

Mental,  spiritual,  and  social, — 


Known  to  physical  existence, 

And  of  even  grander  concepts 

Than  is  possible  in  bodies  ^5 

Chained  to  mortal  circumstances, 

With  capacity  ennobled 
And  environment  exalted, 

Competent  to  love  and  cherish 
And  remember  former  loved  ones,  50 
Being  free  to  change  location 
Without  physical  restrictions 
Or  corporeal  conditions, 

In  defiance  of  the  boundaries 

Fixed  by  space  and  time  and  matter,  55 

Just  as  thought  and  recollection 

Leap  o’er  continents  and  oceans 

With  less  effort  or  exertion 

Than  in  physical  existence 

We  require  to  greet  a comrade?  60 

In  this  hurried  exegesis, 

Proving  sound  to  be  a substance 
Real  as  is  air  or  odor, 

I have  aimed  at  broader  questions 
Than  those  merely  contemplated  65 

In  their  philosophic  aspect, 

Howsoever  grand  they  may  be 
Viewed  as  scientific  problems, — 
Questions  which  involve  existence 
Of  a conscious,  living  ego,  70 

When  corporeal  organisms 
Join  the  elements  of  nature. 

If  I have  at  all  succeeded 
In  this  novel  undertaking, 

And,  no  doubt,  as  some  will  think  it,  75 
This  audacious  innovation, 

And  without  perverting  nature 

Or  the  principles  of  logic 

Proved  a substance  so  transcendent 

As  are  sonorific  pulses  80 

(As  would  seem  must  be  admitted), 

Till  we  all  can  recognize  it 
As  a substantive  existence 
Operating  all  around  us, 


Chap.  VI. 


Addenda. 


335 


And  essentially  connected 
With  the  very  laws  of  motion, 

Though  beyond  our  comprehension 
Viewed  through  physical  conditions, 

Yet  a substance  never  dreamt  of  5 

Since  the  earliest  dawn  of  science, 
Though  most  intimately  blended 
With  all  earthly  occupations, 

And  inseparably  connected 

With  most  sentient  forms  of  being  10 

From  their  birth  to  dissolution, — 

If,  I add,  there  is  such  substance, 

Yet  so  little  comprehended, 

There  can  be  no  strain  on  reason 
In  admitting  spirit-substance  15 

By  the  most  confirmed  believer 
In  Darwinian  evolution 
Or  materialistic  dogmas, 

Which  deny  the  soul’s  existence 
Separate  from  organism  20 

Of  corporeal  blood  and  muscle; 

For  if  sound  can  be  substantial 
And  consist  of  real  atoms, 

May  not  mental  modes  of  motion 
And  all  vital  operations  25 

Be  corpuscular  emissions 
Or  substantial  radiations 
From  the  elemental  essence 
Of  eternal  life  and  being? 

If  the  elemental  forces,  30 

Such  as  sound  and  gravitation, 

Can  be  viewed  as  real  substance 
Yet  beyond  our  comprehension, — 

Even  I may  add — conception, 

Why  not  all  the  mental  powers — 35 

Spirit,  memory,  and  instinct, — 

Be  regarded  as  substantial, 

Having  absolute  existence 

Independently  of  atoms 

Which  now  constitute  our  bodies  40 

And  thus  form  a living  basis 

Grounded  in  true  laws  of  science 

And  the  principles  of  nature 

For  a hope  of  life  hereafter? 

Thus  I aim  by  demonstrating  45 


Substances  beyond  the  limits 
Of  our  abstract  range  of  knowledge, 

And  by  absolutely  proving 

Entities  the  most  unlikely 

In  the  polity  of  nature  50 

To  be  looked  upon  as  substance 

By  the  superficial  thinker, 

To  coerce  the  laws  of  science 
To  the  standard  of  religion, 

And  to  aid  in  man’s  redemption  55 

From  materialistic  darkness 
To  that  spirit-evolution 
Which  accepts  the  revelation 
Of  a better  life  hereafter; 

And  thus,  by  the  light  of  science,  60 
Analyzing  nature’s  forces, 

Make  external  laws  subservient 
To  the  fact  of  unseen  essence 
Centering  in  one  living  fountain, 

Thus  by  blending  outward  science  65 

With  invisible  existence 

To  leave  no  excuse  whatever 

For  the  atheist  and  deist 

In  denying  life  hereafter, 

Or  the  soul’s  substantial  nature,  70 

On  the  ground  that  such  existence 
Does  not  come  within  the  purview 
Of  our  sentient  observation, 

Or  because  such  spirit-substance 
Is  intangible  to  senses  75 

And  beyond  our  recognition 
As  a scientific  question. 

Reasoning  upon  this  subject 
In  the  light  of  facts  thus  proven, 

With  the  mind  as  much  as  may  be  80 

Liberated  from  the  grosser 

Thoughts  and  feelings  which  control  it, 

Let  us  carefully  inquire 

Is  it  any  more  mysterious 

Or  occult  that  spirit-substance,  85 

Or  that  intellectual  essence 

Feel  and  think  apart  from  matter 

Such  as  constitutes  our  bodies, 

Than  that  other  demonstrated 


336 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Substances,  as  sound,  for  instance, 
Rays  of  light  or  magnetism, 

Penetrate  the  densest  bodies 
Such  as  silver,  rock,  and  diamond, 
Without  structural  displacement 
Or  derangement  of  their  atoms, 

Even  acting  on  the  senses 
By  sonorous  words  or  symbols 
Through  such  dense  and  solid  masses? 

Is  the  recondite  enigma 
Of  the  personal  existence 
Or  self-conscious  sentient  ego 
Of  the  soul  absolved  from  matter, 

Such  as  this  corporeal  body, 

Or  intelligent  communion 
Of  such  souls  with  one  another 
When  released  from  organisms 
And  their  physical  conditions, 

Any  more  a source  of  wonder 
Than  the  demonstrated  problem 
Of  electrical  discharges 
As  substantial  emanations 
Plunging  through  the  entire  ocean, 
Following  their  threads  of  wire 
Without  visible  expansion 
Of  the  delicate  conductors, 

Linking  friends  thus  separated 
By  three  thousand  miles  of  water 
Touching  them  with  fiery  fingers 
And  with  intellectual  pulses 
Bringing  messages  of  gladness? 

Such  reflections  to  the  thoughtful, 
When  all  force  is  viewed  as  substance 
(Not  as  insubstantial  nothing , 

As  the  common  view  regards  it), 

Show  the  folly  of  denying 
From  materialistic  data 
Conscious  separate  existence 
Of  the  unseen  living  ego, 

Or  that  souls  may  have  the  outline 
Of  the  mortal  organisms 
With  their  entities  substantial 
Separate  from  fleshly  bodies, 

And  when  thus  emancipated 
Reason  as  they  now  can  reason, 


Hope  and  love  with  all  the  fervor 
Of  our  present  conscious  powers, 

And  continue  on  thus  living 
With  the  faculties  enlarging 
And  the  mental  view  expanding, 
Even  when  this  organism 
Settles  down  to  dust  and  ashes; 

And  if  such  be  true  in  reason 
Of  this  inner  spirit-substance, 

As  analogies  of  science 

And  of  incorporeal  forces 

Would  seem  clearly  to  substantiate, 

Is  it  not  still  more  presumptive 
That  an  all-pervading  Spirit 
Infinite  in  mental  substance 
And  unlimited  in  wisdom, 

Power,  entity,  and  selfhood, 

Source  and  fountain  of  all  spirit 
And  of  all  the  laws  of  being 
Is  a genuine  existence, 

Omnipresent,  self-sustaining, 
Independently  coeval 
With  duration,  space,  and  matter, 
First  and  Primal  Cause  of  all  things 
As  our  senses  recognize  them, 

And  in  mental  comprehension 
Incommensurably  exalted 
As  compared  to  human  greatness, 
And,  as  vital  source  and  fountain, 
Inconceivably  transcendent, 

From  which  every  living  creature 
Takes  its  entity  of  being? 

Strange  that  scientists  like  Darwin, 
Haeckel,  Huxley,  Spencer,  Tyndall, 
Can  ignore  the  mind  as  substance, 

Or  the  entity  of  spirit, 

Since  intangible  to  senses, 

While  surrounded  with  such  active, 
Powerful,  substantial  forces, 

Such  as  I have  been  discussing, — 
Substances  beyond  the  senses, 

Yet  subsistences  most  real, 

Which  pervade  all  parts  of  nature 
And  all  gross  material  bodies 
To  their  molecules  and  units, 


5 

io 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VI. 


Addenda. 


337 


While  without  a doubt  or  scruple 
They  admit  substantial  ether , 

Filling  interstellar  regions 
And  pervading  solid  bodies, 

When  the  intellect  or  spirit,  5 

Even  as  intrinsic  matter, 

Need  not  be  a whit  more  tenuous 
Or  a millionth  part  as  subtile, 

Even  as  all  modern  science 
Represents  ethereal  substance.  10 

One  would  think  that  Reason’s  finger, 
After  ether  is  admitted 
And  sound  proved  to  be  a substance, 
Should  with  certainty  unerring 
Point  savants  so  cultivated  15 

Through  these  elemental  wonders 
To  a mind  and  force  above  them 
As  the  ultimate  causation 
Of  not  only  organisms, 

But  the  supervising  power  20 

Of  this  complex  web  of  forces, 

Of  which  man  with  upright  stature 
Represents  the  faint  imago, 

And  his  intellectual  powers 
But  the  glimmering  adumbration.  25 

What  a blindness  to  attribute 
Man’s  development  of  structure 
And  complexity  of  powers 
To  his  own  organic  forces 
And  elective  laws  of  nature,  30 

Such  as  natural  selection 
Or  survival  of  the  fittest, 

Without  either  plan  or  wisdom 

In  his  primitive  formation 

To  devise  or  supervise  it;  35 

For,  however  fibrous  tissue 

Or  primordial  bone  and  muscle 

May  be  traced  from  protoplasm, 

And  sensation’s  streams  be  followed 
To  their  ganglionic  center  40 

By  the  myriad  vital  nerve-threads, 

There  investigation  ceases, 

And  all  scientific  knowledge 

Based  on  physiologic  data 

Terminates  its  fruitless  searches  45 


At  this  nucleus  of  being, 

While  the  scientist  confounded 
Asks,  “Who  organized  that  center 
Whence  shoot  out  these  wondrous  life-rays 
Causing  voluntary  movement,  50 

Instinct,  reason,  and  sensation?” 

Till  savants  shall  solve  the  wonders 
Of  these  demonstrated  forces, 

Which  are  nothing  to  our  senses 
Yet  intrinsically  substantial, — 55 

Till  they  trace  to  first  causation 
And  their  manner  of  diffusion 
Magnetism,  sound,  caloric, 

Electricity,  and  odor, 

Gravitation,  light,  cohesion,  60 

Atmospheric  air  and  gases, — 

Till  they  can  explain  the  problems 
Of  osmotic  force  and  action, 

Wonders  of  phlogistication, 

Crystalline  and  gem  construction,  65 

Growth  and  food-assimilation, — 

Till  they  can  from  laws  of  science 

Give  us  some  explicit  idea 

Of  the  complex  acts  of  nature 

Shown  in  life  and  vegetation, — 70 

Trace  the  web  of  capillaries 

Which  convey  arterial  currents 

And  connect  with  venal  conduits, — 

Paint  the  modus  operandi 

Of  the  delicate  fovilla  75 

In  its  fructifying  process, 

Or  show  how  the  vital  impulse 
Of  its  microscopic  granules 
Forms  the  flower-germs  in  stigmas, 

And  explain  the  inner  problems  80 

Underlying  those  just  mentioned 
Of  which  nature  is  prolific, 

They  might  well  assert  less  boldly, 

Or  assume  with  less  assurance, 

That  there  is  no  God  but  nature  85 

And  no  legislative  power 
Over  and  above  these  forces 
To  enact  the  laws  controlling 
Such  inscrutable  and  wondrous 
Processes  and  operations.  90 


33» 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Failing  to  explain  one  process 
Or  a single  operation 
Of  the  millions  interwoven 
In  harmonious  confusion 
Through  the  subtle  web  of  nature,  5 
Though  their  intellects  be  equal 
To  the  powers  of  a Newton 
Or  the  manifold  resources 
Of  a Franklin  or  a Humboldt, 

They  should  earnestly  and  calmly  10 
Ask  themselves  the  modest  question, 

“ Is  it  possible  no  being — 

No  embodiment  of  wisdom — 

In  this  universe  around  us 

Sees  or  comprehends  more  clearly  15 

These  bewildering  enigmas?” 

And  before  they  scout  the  idea 
Of  a life  beyond  the  present, 

Or  that  man’s  intrinsic  nature, 

As  to  entity  of  being,  20 

Has  an  absolute  existence 
Which  can  live  and  feel  and  reason 
Independently  of  matter, 

Let  them  first  explain  distinctly 
How  a spirit  lives  and  reasons,  25 

Feels  and  loves  and  sympathises 
In  these  ponderable  bodies ; — 

How  material  brain  can  furnish 
Spirit  with  that  mystic  something 
We  call  memory  or  instinct; — 30 

How  the  molecules  of  matter 
Concentrate  themselves  in  bodies 
By  corpuscular  attraction, 

Without  mind  to  organize  them — 

Without  some  primordial  wisdom  35 

To  devise  such  wondrous  structures 
With  such  intellectual  powers 
As  the  human  brain  exhibits; — 

Though  the  brain  is  no  more  wondrous 
As  a scientific  problem,  40 

With  its  mighty  stores  of  knowledge 
In  a Keplar  or  a Bacon 
(Being  past  all  comprehension) 

Than  within  the  tiniest  midges 

Which  are  born  to  lave  in  sunbeams  45 


And  have  but  an  hour’s  existence, — 

Than  the  optic  nerve  of  monads 
Which  besport  themselves  by  thousands 
In  a single  drop  of  water, — 

Than  the  phosphorescent  flashes  50 

Of  the  lampyris  or  glow-worm, — 

No  more  fathomless  by  science 
Than  that  strange  encysted  venom — 
Death  in  concentrated  atoms — 

Hid  beneath  the  fangs  of  pythons, — 55 

Each  stands  equally  a problem 
Which  confounds  imagination, 

Laughing  to  contempt  our  science, 

And  with  scornful,  withering  satire, 

Points  its  finger  toward  the  heavens!  60 
Yet  it  comes  to  pass  most  strangely 
That  such  scientists  see  nothing 
In  these  wonderful  arrangements, 

With  their  startling  adaptations 
Suiting  means  to  diverse  uses  65 

In  the  polity  of  nature, 

Which  shows  either  plan  or  foresight 
In  such  marvelous  constructions, 

Much  less  can  they  see  the  wisdom 
Of  an  ultimate  Causation  70 

Or  the  least  design  or  purpose 
In  man’s  wonder-working  spirit 
Why  he  should  not  have  arisen 
From  a moneron  or  polyp. 

And  though  met  at  every  juncture  75 

With  these  absolute  enigmas 
And  unanswerable  problems, 

Which  alone  can  be  unraveled 
By  admitting  plan  and  forethought 
And  intelligent  creation,  80 

Without  once  a thought  of  doubting 
Nature’s  intricate  resources, — 

Without  challenging  that  science 
Which  reveals  the  cryptic  wonders 
And  unsolvable  enigmas  85 

Hidden  in  the  smallest  atom 
Of  the  crudest  anorgana, 

They  in  triumph  at  our  nescience 
Coolly  ask  a demonstration 
Of  the  substance  of  the  spirit, 


90 


Chap.  VI. 


Addenda. 


339 


Or  its  personal  existence 
As  an  independent  ego, 

And  a palpable  exhibit 
Of  our  infinite  Causation, 

Claiming  that  the  God  of  Nature,  5 

If  an  entity  be  shown  them — 
Apodeictically  proven — 

As  we  demonstrate  combustion 
By  reducing  wood  to  ashes, 

Ere  the  mind  can  yield  it  credence,  10 
Notwithstanding  all  the  problems 
With  which  nature  has  involved  them, 
And  coerced  their  acquiescence, 

But  of  which  no  law  of  science 

And  no  human  explanation  15 

Can  afford  the  least  solution. 

Though  a God  may  not  be  proven, 
Positively  and  directly, 

As  a tangible  position, 

Since  intangible  to  senses,  20 

Yet  all  nature  demonstrates  it 
As  a rational  assumption, 

Since  its  negative  must  clearly 

Be  absurd  and  inconsistent 

Even  with  the  very  reason  25 

Which  would  call  a God  in  question, — 

Just  as  sound  is  proved  a substance 

By  all  other  suppositions 

Or  conceivable  assumptions, 

Such  as  waves  or  modes  of  motion,  30 
Breaking  down  by  force  of  logic, 

Leaving  but  the  one  position 
Standing,  by  the  clear  exclusion 
Of  all  negative  assumptions. 

Thus  continually  the  object  35 

And  the  paramount  intention 
Of  this  seeming  long  digression, 
Demonstrating  sound  as  substance 
By  completely  overthrowing 
Every  negative  position,  40 

Comes  unbidden  to  the  surface 
By  directly  concentrating 
Negative  yet  solid  reasons 
For  intelligent  causation, 

With  analogies  from  nature,  45 


Unmistakably  conclusive, 

Showing  why  materialism, 

Which  denies  substantial  being 
To  man’s  intellectual  nature, 

Is  a logical  deception  50 

And  a manifest  ignoring 
Of  the  principles  of  science. 

Naturalists  who  seek  to  limit 
Conscious  elements  of  being 
To  the  visible  creation,  55 

Making  life  thus  end  abruptly 
With  man  as  the  highest  model, 

Have  but  circumscribed  conceptions 

And  but  asymmetric  ideas 

Of  a universal  system,  60 

Which  analogy  would  teach  us 

Makes  this  highest  earthly  model 

But  the  center  of  existence 

Or  the  middle  of  creation, 

Pointing  downward  through  transitions,  65 
By  a scale  of.  graduations, 

Toward  infinitude  of  being, 

As  the  microscope  must  teach  us 
If  we  carry  out  its  lessons; 

For  ryhen  we  have  reached  the  mo?ias , 70 
Or  crepusculum , the  smallest 
Of  the  infusorial  monads, 

We  dare  not  assert  that  being 
Is  thus  circumscribed  and  ended, 

But  that  had  we  greater  powers  75 

In  our  magnifying  lenses 
We  would  find  still  other  creatures, 

In  this  downward  graduation, 

Almost  infinitely  smaller 

Than  what  seems  the  present  limit  80 

In  this  tiny  animalcule; 

While  inside  these  lesser  beings, 

Swimming  with  unbounded  freedom 
In  their  circulating  fluids, 

Still  might  live  a race  of  monads  85 

Perfect  in  their  organism 

And  compared  to  which  the  smallest 

Present  forms  of  animalcule 

Would  seem  elephants  and  camels 

As  compared  to  lice  and  midges;  90 


340 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


While  still  more  extended  vision— 

I care  not  how  much  extended — 
Would  unfold  still  smaller  beings, 
Reaching  down  ad  infinitum , 

With  no  word  to  clothe  the  concept 
Of  this  limitless  gradation 
But  infinity  of  being! 

If  such  logical  conclusion 
Of  infinitude  confronts  us 
In  the  chain  of  sentient  creatures 
As  the  stream  of  life  runs  downward, 
Is  it  not  in  strictest  keeping 
With  analogies  of  science 
Or  antitheses  in  nature — 

With  the  limitless  expansion 
Of  the  vast  sidereal  heavens, 

And  of  infinite  duration 
Either  way  we  choose  to  trace  it, 
Starting  from  the  present  moment — 
That  the  stream,  if  followed  upward 
Through  intelligent  gradations 
Can  not  end  with  man’s  existence 
As  the  highest  form  of  being, 

Any  more  than  stellar  bodies 
Of  our  telescopic  series 
Form  the  boundary  of  distance 
And  material  limitation? 

If  the  elements  and  forces, 

Making  up  the  bulk  of  nature, 
Though  intangible  are  real 
Forms  of  entity  substantial, 

Just  as  much  as  wood  and  iron 
Are  but  other  forms  of  substance, 
May  not  life  be  just  as  really 
Life  without  corporeal  structure, 

And  as  truly  conscious  being 
As  can  sound  or  magnetism 
Be  corpuscular  emissions 
Without  gross  material  atoms? 

Hence  the  logical  conclusion 
Of  an  infinite  gradation 
Upward  in  the  chain  of  being 
To  an  omnipresent,  conscious, 
Self-existent,  living  Ego, 

Must  be  actually  accepted 


As  the  counterpart  in  nature 
And  the  necessary  converse 
Of  that  infinite  gradation 
In  the  opposite  direction; 

While  as  clearly  must  it  follow 
That  above  this  highest  model, 

Which  the  human  form  exhibits 
As  corporeal  organism, 

Being  (still  the  same  in  essence) 
Takes  a leap  in  vital  structure 
To  an  incorporeal  texture 
And  intangible  existence, 

And  through  towering  ranks  of  angels 
Upward  will  surpass  each  other 
Toward  that  infinite  Subsistence 
Who  made  all  things  for  His  pleasure. 

That  all  life  above  the  human 
Should  take  on  a form  of  texture 
Suited  to  a grander  selfhood 
Than  corporeal  organism 
Furnishes  for  man’s  existence, 

Is  a problem  no  more  wondrous 
Nor  revolting  to  the  reason 
Than  the  established  proposition 
That  the  various  ranks  of  substance 
Have  a gradual  transition 
From  a solid  mass  like  iron 
Up  through  water,  air,  and  gases, 

Each  one  more  attenuated, 

Till  the  sound’s  substantial  atoms 
Form  the  sublimated  climax. 

Here  I therefore  leave  the  question, 
With  the  confident  conviction 
That  whoever  weighs  this  subject 
With  these  various  facts  before  him, 
Must  see  vast  considerations 
In  these  substances  of  nature, 

By  the  chain  of  graduation 
So  completely  demonstrated 
From  the  densest  to  the  rarest — 

From  the  adamantine  texture 
Of  the  granite  and  the  diamond — 

To  the  attenuated  atoms 
Constituting  magnetism, 

Why  the  soul  must  be  substantial, 

And,  as  personal  existence, 

Have  a living,  conscious  ego; 

Or  why  manifest  progression, 

Upward  through  such  chain  of  being, 
Higher  mounting,  ever  higher, 

Must  at  last  involve  the  climax 
Of  an  infinite  Creator. 


5 

io 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


CHAr.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


34  r 


Chapter  VII. 


EVOLUTION.— SPONTANEOUS  GENERATION.  „ 
REVIEW  OF  PROFESSOR  HAECKEL. 


Statement  of  the  Hypothesis  as  advanced  by  Professor  Haeckel. — It  denies  all  necessity  for  a Creator 
in  the  Origin  of  Life  and  the  First  Organisms,  and  in  this  is  opposed  to  Darwin. — Haeckel  bases  the 
whole  Theory  of  Spontaneous  Generation  on  the  Monera,  as  the  simplest  of  all  Organisms. — His  de- 
scription of  these  creatures,  and  his  reasons  for  believing  that  they  originated  by  Spontaneous  Genera- 
tion.  The  assumption  shown  to  be  fallacious,  from  various  considerations. — A bridgeless  hiatus  between 

Living  Organisms  and  Anorgana. — Darwin  and  Huxley  both  contradict  Haeckel. — All  Chemistry  and 
all  Experience  deny  the  Spontaneous  Hypothesis. — Haeckel’s  superficial  views  of  Science  exposed. — 
The  existence  of  Intelligent  Power  above  Nature  and  her  laws  shown  to  be  Scientific. — Haeckel's  own 
Theory  of  Law  unwillingly  demonstrates  the  existence  of  a God. — The  absurdity  of  Haeckel’s  views  of 
Monera  as  having  but  a single  substance  and  as  being  destitute  of  organs  scathingly  exposed  and  turned 
against  him. — The  highest  authorities  quoted  to  show  his  ignorance  of  Science. — His  Spontaneous  Gen- 
eration results  in  overthrowing  the  whole  Theory  of  Evolution. — He  flatly  contradicts  his  own  assump- 
tions as  to  the  Homogeneous  Structure  of  Monera. — Life  and  Mental  Powers  illustrated  by  the  supposed 
Ether. — Why  not  God  be  Omnipresent  as  a Substantive  Existence  if  Ether  can  be  all-pervading,  as 
Science  teaches? — Chemists  can  never  produce  Life  where  the  germ  is  wanting. — The  belief  of  the 
Ancients  that  ticks,  lice,  weevils,  &c.,  came  by  Spontaneity. — Monera  have  shown  no  change  of  structure 
for  millions  of  years,  and  hence  are  not  likely  to  have  ever  diverged. — Darwin  arrayed  against  Haeckel 
and  against  the  possible  transmutation  of  Monera. — The  Absurdity  of  Spontaneous  Generation  not  being 
nowin  operation  if  it  ever  was  possible. — Comparison  of  Darwin’s  and  Haeckel’s  Theories  of  Com- 
mencement of  the  First  Forms. — The  Contingencies  on  which  Man’s  Existence  depended,  according  to 
both  theories. — Haeckel’s  confused  ideas  of  Life. — The  Logical  Impossibility  of  Spontaneous  Genera- 
tion.— No  Chance  in  Nature, — everything  done  by  Law.  — A distinct  Refutation  of  Haeckel’s  Assump- 
tion.— His  different  Conditions  of  Life  in  the  Carbon  Age  exposed  and  turned  against  him. — An  en- 
tirely New  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  Species  in  opposition  to  Darwin  and  Haeckel. — Darwin’s  Trans- 
mutation and  Haeckel’s  Spontaneous  Generation  thrown  into  the  shade. — Conclusion  and  Summary. 


Having  in  the  previous  chapters 
Dwelt  somewhat  elaborately 
On  the  reasons  for  assuming 
God  in  preference  to  Nature 
As  the  Ultimate  Causation  5 

Of  organic  life  and  being, — 

As  the  Infinite  Designer 
Of  the  countless  adaptations 
Everywhere  observed  around  us, — 

Let  us  now  at  once  consider  io 

Haeckel’s  doctrine  of  “Creation,” 
(Deemed  by  him  and  many  others 
Far  superior  to  Darwin’s, 

Which  admits  creative  power , 

Wisdom,  plan,  and  ordination , 15 


And  an  Infinite  “Creator” 

For  the  first  or  primal  structures,) 

And  his  views  of  organism, 

Or  how  came  the  vital  functions 
Of  the  first  few  simple  creatures  20 

From  which  have  evolved  all  others, — 
Which  he  designates  a simple 
“ Coming  into  ” life  or  being 
“ By  spontaneous  generation  ” 

“Out  of  inorganic  matter.”*  25 

* It  is  highly  important  that  the  reader  should 
stop  here  and  turn  back  to  the  commencement  of 
the  second  chapter,  page  29,  and  re-read  four  pages, 
or  to  line  10,  page  33,  containing  a concise  state- 
ment of  Professor  Haeckel’s  Theory  of  Spontaneous 
Generation. — A uthor. 


342 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


This  advanced  and  learned  writer, 

After  years  of  close  attention 
And  the  most  profound  researches 
Through  the  lower  forms  in  nature, 

Claims  that  life  originated  5 

In  a small  pelagian  creature 

Called  the  Moneron — the  “ simplest  ” 

Of  all  living  organisms — 

Now  found  in  the  deep-sea  soundings 
Miles  beneath  the  ocean’s  surface,  10 
And  that  this  imperfect  being, 

But  a step  from  anorgana 
Or  from  inorganic  matter, 

Is  so  near  to  lifeless  substance 

That  the  difference  between  them  15 

Is  almost  imaginary, 

And  requires  little  effort 

Of  the  mind  to  view  such  creatures 

Springing  into  life  and  being, 

First  as  lumps  of  pure  albumen,  20 

Or  as  grains  of  fatty  sarcode, 

After  which,  by  adding  carbon, 

Through  some  unknown  law  of  nature 
They  are  instantly  converted 
Into  living,  moving  beings,  25 

Capable  of  procreation, 

Voluntary  locomotion, 

Growth,  and  food-assimilation, — 

Are,  in  fact,  substantial  creatures, 

With  a sentient  organism,  30 

Having  vital  force  and  instinct 
Of  the  most  surprising  nature.* 

* “Of  still  greater , nay,  the  very  greatest  impor- 
tance to  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation  are, 
finally,  the  exceedingly  remarkable  Monera , those 
creatures  which  we  have  already  so  frequently  men- 
tioned, and  which  are  not  only  the  simplest  of  all 
observed  organisms , but  even  the  simplest  of  all 
imaginable  organisms.  . . . Through  the  discovery 
of  these  organisms,  which  are  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance, the  supposition  of  a spontaneous  generation 
loses  most  of  its  difficulties.  For  as  all  trace  of  or- 
ganization— all  distinction  of  heterogeneous  parts — 
is  still  wanting  in  them,  and  as  all  the  vital  phe- 
nomena are  performed  by  one  and  the  same  homo- 
geneous and  formless  matter,  we  can  easily  imagine 
their  origin  l>y  spontaneous  generation.” 


Yet  these  monera  so  simple — 

Actually  the  very  “ simplest ” 

Beings  known  as  “organisms,” — 35 

Formed  of  but  “one  single  substance,” 

Or  a simple  combination 
Of  albumen  and  pure  carbon, 

Seeming  uni-organisms, 

Since  completely  “homogeneous,”  40 

Formed  of  “semi-fluid”  “mucus,” 

And  yet  structureless  and  “formless,” 

W ithout  parts  though  having  functions. 
Such  as  feeding,  propagating, 

And  not  only  multiplying  45 

By  ingenious  separation 
Of  their  bodies  into  sections, 

But  with  most  surprising  powers 
For  developing  new  species 
Having  complicated  structures  50 

By  their  own  organic  changes 
Or  spontaneous  variations, 

Yet  without  the  parts  to  vary, — 
“Organisms”  without  “organs,” — 
“Formless,”  “homogeneous”  masses,  55 
Without  heterogeneous  structure, 

“The  whole  body  of  these  most  simple  of  all  or- 
ganisms— a semi-fluid,  formless,  and  simple  lump 
of  albumen, — consists,  in  fact,  of  only  a single 
chemical  combination.”  . . . “ Formerly,  when  the 
doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation  was  advocated, 
it  failed  at  once  to  obtain  adherents  on  account  of 
the  composite  structure  of  the  simplest  organisms 
then  known.  It  is  only  since  we  have  discovered 
the  exceedingly  important  Afonera,  only  since  we 
have  become  acquainted  in  them  with  organisms 
not  in  any  way  built  up  of  distinct  organs,  but  which 
consist  solely  of  a single  chemical  combination,  and 
yet  grow,  nourish,  and  propagate  themselves,  that 
this  great  difficulty  has  been  removed,  and  the  hy- 
pothesis of  spontaneous  generation  has  gained  a de- 
gree of probability  which  entitles  it  to  fill  up  the 
gap  existing  between  Kant’s  Cosmogany  and  La- 
marck’s Theory  of  Descent.” 

“Only  such  homogeneous  organisms  as  are  yet 
not  differentiated,  and  are  similar  to  the  inorganic 
crystals,  in  being  homogeneously  composed  of  one 
single  substance,  could  arise  by  spontaneous  gene- 
ration and  could  become  the  primeval  parents  of  all 
other  organisms.” — Prof.  Haeckel,  Ilistoiy  of 
Creation,  vol.  i. , pp.  332,  334,  344,  345. 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


343 


Yet  with  voluntary  motions, 

Hunting  food  by  changing  places, 
Throwing  out  their  small  projections 
Or  protuberances  for  motion, — 
“Processes”  like  toes  and  fingers,  5 

Or  their  feet-like  “pseudopodia” 
“Pinching  in”  their  “mucous”  bodies 
When  they  wish  to  separate  them 
By  an  act  of  “j^-division  ” 

Which  can  be  but  voluntary,  10 

As  no  self- act  can  be  thought  of 
Unless  guided  by  volition 
Based  on  motive,  choice,  and  will-power.* 
All  these  qualities  and  powers, 
Capabilities  and  instincts,  15 

Center  in  this  little  being, 

Which  this  naturalist  assures  us 
Is  the  very  “simplest”  creature 
Known  to  organized  existence, 

And  so  near  to  lifeless  substance,  20 

With  so  small  a line  disparting 

It  from  inorganic  matter 

That  he  sees  no  difficulty 

In  its  having  been  developed 

And  possessed  of  all  its  powers  25 

From  “spontaneous  generation,” 

Without  intellect  or  purpose 
To  have  planned  its  organism, — 

Without  prior  life  or  being 

In  the  universe  of  nature  30 

To  communicate  the  life-germ 

*“The  simple  method  of  propagation  of  the 
Moneron  by  self -division,  is,  in  reality,  the  most 
universal,  and  most  widely  spread  of  all  the  different 
modes  of  propagation.”  ...  “A  pinching  in  takes 
plclce,  contracting  the  middle  of  the  globule  on  all 
sides,  and  finally  leads  to  the  separation  of  the  two 
halves.  Each  half  then  becomes  rounded  off,  and 
now  appears  as  an  independent  individual,  which 
commences  anew  the  simple  course  of  vital  phenom- 
ena of  nutrition  and  propagation.  ” 

“When  the  Moneron  moves  itself,  there  are 
formed  on  the  upper  surface  of  the  little  mucous 
globule  shapeless  finger-like  processes , or  very  fine 
radiated  threads;  these  are  the  so-called  false  feet, 
or  pseudopodia — Haeckel,  History  of  Creation, 
vol.  i.,  pp.  185,  186,  187. 


And  the  voluntary  powers 
To  this  miracle  of  structure, — 

Though  if  viewed  in  strict  accordance 
With  the  facts  thus  clearly  proven  35 
By  this  author’s  own  description 
Of  this  wondrous  organism, 

Monera  still  form  a bridgeless, 

Broad,  and  infinite  hiatus, 

Which  must  separate  this  living,  40 

Voluntary,  moving  creature, 

From  the  realms  of  anorgana 

And  all  lifeless  laws  of  nature 

Just  as  much  and  just  as  clearly 

As  if  monera  were  mammals  45 

Of  the  very  highest  order. 

Vain  will  scientific  writers 
Seek  to  span  the  awful  chasm 
Which  a sentient  life  exhibits 
Juxtaposited  with  masses  50 

Of  pure  inorganic  matter, 

With  its  line  of  demarcation 
Reaching  to  the  very  heavens, 

By  such  puerile  assumptions 

As  spontaneous  generation,  55 

Tacitly  originating 

Something  really  out  of  nothing 

Since  no  sentient  life  was  prior, 

So  absurdly  inconsistent 

With  the  principles  of  science  60 

And  all  physiologic  data, 

While  this  whole  spontaneous  doctrine, 

As  distinctly  taught  by  Haeckel, 

In  the  “homogeneous”  structure 

Of  this  lump  of  “formless  matter,”  65 

Destitute  of  parts  or  organs, 

Is  completely  contradicted 
Both  by  Darwin  and  by  Huxley.* 

But  if  Darwin  is  mistaken 
As  to  every  “living  creature  ” 70 


* “We  can  not  fathom  the  marvellous  complexity 
of  an  organic  being;  but  on  the  hypothesis  here  ad- 
vanced this  complexity  is  much  increased.  Each  liv- 
ing creature  [Haeckel  admits  monera  to  be  “living” 
creatures]  must  be  looked  at  as  a microcosm — a little 
universe — formed  of  a host  of  self-propagating  or- 


344 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Being  really  heterogeneous 

And  composed  of  parts  and  organs 

“Numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,” 

And  if  Huxley  is  in  error 

That  there  is  “no  living  being”  5 

Formed  of  “homogeneous  substance,” 

And  if  it  be  true  as  Haeckel 

Has  so  positively  taught  us 

That  a sentient  organism 

May  be  strictly  “ homogeneous,”  10 

Having  but  “one  single  substance,” 

“Formless,”  or  without  a structure, 

And  that  lumps  of  pure  albumen 
Could  be  first  produced  by  nature 
Out  of  inorganic  matter,  15 

And  then  change  to  living  substance 
By  a carbonizing  process, 

Without  prior  plan  or  wisdom 
Or  without  a living  fountain 
From  which  to  derive  the  life-germ  20 
Constituting  it  a being, 

Why  can  not  Professor  Haeckel 
Take  a lump  of  such  albumen 
Of  the  very  purest  nature, 

Then  surcharge  it  with  the  “ carbon,”  25 


ganisms,  inconceivably  minute,  and  as  numerous 
as  the  stars  of  heaven.” — Darwin,  Animals  and 
Plants , vol.  ii.,  p.  483. 

[What  then  becomes  of  Prof.  Haeckel’s  moneron 
as  a “structureless,”  “partless,”  “homogeneous” 
“lump  of  albumen,”  “composed  of  one  single  sub- 
stance” and  “not  in  any  way  built  up  of  distinct 
organs,  but  which  consists  solely  of  a single  chemi- 
cal combination,”  when  Darwin  flatly  tells  him  it 
is  no  such  a thing,  for  “ Each  living  creature  must 
be  looked  at  as  a microcosm — a little  universe — 
formed  of  a host  of  self-propagating  organisms,  in- 
conceivably minute,  and  as  numerous  as  the  stars 
of  heaven”?  But  Darwin  does  not  any  more  flatly 
contradict  him  than  does  Huxley,  as  follows: — ] 

“JVo  living  being  [Monera  are  “living  beings”] 
is  throughout  of  homogeneous  substance;  the  most 
of  them  are  highly  complex , from  the  union  of  many 
dissimilar  parts.  The  statement  of  this  structure 
constitutes  Anatomy,  and  if  it  is  carried  down  to 
the  minutest  microscopic  elements  of  the  organism 
it  is  called  Histology.” — Huxley,  Elementary 
Physiology , p.  15. 


Making  it  a living  creature, 

And  thus  demonstrate  his  doctrine 
Of  “spontaneous  generation”? 

Since  such  lump  of  pure  albumen 
Would  need  neither  parts  nor  organs  30 
Nor  a heterogeneous  structure 
To  become  a living  creature! 

There  can  surely  be  no  reason 
Why  a lump  of  pure  albumen 
In  the  hands  of  such  a chemist,  35 

With  assistance  of  such  talent 
And  far-reaching  comprehension, 

Should  not  leap  “into  existence” 

After  being  charged  with  carbon, 

And  with  aid  of  such  a genius  40 

Actually  commence  evolving 
Into  toads  or  salamanders, 

If  it  did  occur  in  nature 

With  the  same  precise  albumen 

And  this  carbon  combination ! 45 

If  the  thing  was  done  by  simple 

Laws  of  inorganic  matter, 

Without  any  mind  to  aid  it 
And  no  prior  life  for  impulse, 

It  can  surely  be  repeated  50 

With  such  modern  talent  added, 

Since  we  have  such  fine  albumen, 

Purified  and  sublimated, 

And  the  very  best  of  carbon, 

With  the  necessary  knowledge  55 

To  arrange  the  right  proportions 
For  this  vital  operation. 

And  if  any  man  can  do  it, 

Having  all  the  apparatus 

And  the  proper  laboratory,  60 

With  the  carbon  and  albumen, 

Haeckel  is  the  man  most  surely, 

If  his  chemical  achievements 
May  be  judged  by  bald  assertion. 

Let  him  take  this  lump  of  “mucus,”  65 
Size  of  moneron,  and  charge  it 
With  the  quantity  of  carbon 
Proper  for  such  operation, 

Even  if  it  takes  the  “ pressure  ” 

Of  the  “carboniferous  period”  7° 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


When  his  “ favorable  conditions,” 

As  he  says,  were  so  superior; 

Then,  if  it  commences  “pinching,” 
Girdling  round  its  little  body, 

As  a sign  of  “ sr^-division,” 

Throwing  out  its  “ pseudopodia,” 
Feet-like  “processes”  and  “fingers,” 
As  if  searching  for  nutrition, 

Proving  it  an  “ organism  ” 

Even  if  it  has  no  “ organs,” 

And  is  strictly  “homogeneous,” 

Having  but  “ one  single  substance,” 

He  need  only  take  a larger 
Quantity  of  pure  albumen 
And  the  carbon  in  proportion, 

Giving  it  the  form  required 
For  a reptile,  bird,  or  mammal, 

And  I see  no  earthly  reason 
Why  a wolf  or  orang-outang 
Might  not  thus  be  shaped  by  Haeckel, 
And  with  proper  charge  of  carbon 
Be  developed  into  being 
“By  spontaneous  generation,” 

Though  it  must  be  owned  such  orang, 
Without  bones  or  other  organs, 

Formed  alone  of  pure  albumen, 

Would  prove  but  a flimsy  structure. 

Really  common  sense  should  teach  us 
If  the  single  combination 
Of  pure  carbon  and  albumen 
Ever  caused  a living  creature 
By  spontaneous  generation, 

Without  intellect  behind  it 
And  a force  above  all  matter, — 

Then,  with  such  a help  as  Haeckel 
Would  be  to  the  operation, 

And  all  chemical  improvements 
Up  to  date  to  aid  the  process, 

Any  animal  in  nature, 

Minus  blood  and  bones  and  so  forth, 
Might  be  readily  constructed, 

With  sufficient  pure  albumen 
And  a good  supply  of  carbon, — 

While  I have  no  doubt  the  reader 
Would  be  willing  to  contribute 


To  the  purchase  of  albumen 
And  assist  Professor  Haeckel, 

Just  to  see  the  exhibition 
Of  a boneless  orang-outang 
Formed  of  but  “one  single  substance 

But  with  all  the  learned  nonsense 
Of  this  erudite  exponent 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

It  remains  a fact  of  science 
Which  no  naturalist  can  question, 
Chemically  “pure  albumen” 

With  its  carbon  combination 

Is  devoid  of  life  as  soapstone 

Until  life  is  given  to  it 

By  some  living  power  above  it 

Over  all  material  forces 

And  the  laws  which  govern  matter. 

Chemically  pure  albumen 
Left  to  nature  unassisted, 

Even  if  surcharged  with  carbon, 
Must,  instead  of  ever  changing 
To  a living  organism, 

Putrify  and  turn  to  gases, 

And  thus  by  the  laws  of  nature 
And  established  facts  of  science 
Haeckel’s  organless  albumen 
Rears  an  odoriferous  breastwork 
Which  defies  the  false  assumption 
Of  spontaneous  generation ; 

For  there  is  no  life  inherent 
In  the  purest  anorgana 
Nor  is  life  potential  in  it, 

In  whatever  combination — 

Carbon,  iron,  or  albumen, 

Or  whatever  may  be  added. 

Life  is  fro7n  without  all  matter , 

And  when  all  the  combinations 
Are  perfected,  must  be  added 
By  some  agency  above  them  : 

For  the  molecules  or  granules, 
Protoplasm,  cells,  or  atoms, 

Or  whatever  name  you  give  them, 
Which  compose  organic  tissue 
Are  but  simple  specks  of  matter, 
Lifeless  as  the  dust  of  granite, 


5 

IO 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


346 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Till  the  vital  emanation 

From  a higher  source  inspires  them 

With  its  sentient  living  nature; 

And  the  farther  down  we  trace  them 
Through  organic  forms  of  being,  5 

Even  to  the  prior  monads 
Which  evolved  our  animalcules, 

If  there  were  such  evolution, 

Even  if  the  very  units 

Which  composed  those  tiny  creatures  10 

Could  be  separately  noted, 

From  which  cells  were  aggregated 
Which  produced  those  infusoria, 

We  would  find  but  simple  matter 
Without  life  or  vital  function,  15 

Unless  life  had  emanated 
To  such  organized  formations 
From  a source  above  all  matter. 

No  affinity  of  atoms 

By  molecular  attraction  20 

Or  unending  subdivisions 
Of  the  cellular  formation, 

As  in  Darwin’s  late  assumption 
Of  “pangenesis”  and  “gemmules,” 

Helps  to  mitigate  the  trouble, — 25 

Only  complicates  the  problem, 

Putting  it  still  further  from  us, 

Just  as  if  assumed  reduction 

By  these  endless  subdivisions 

Would  in  time  annihilate  it, — 30 

Thus  encompassing  solution 

By  extinguishing  our  eyesight, 

As  the  weary,  panting  ostrich, 

Thrusts  its  head  within  a sand-drift, 
Thinking  thus  to  blind  the  hunter.  35 

Nothing  but  a recognition 
Of  a supervising  power 
Over  and  above  all  matter, 

(Having  life  for  dispensation, 

And  from  whom  the  vital  substance  40 
Of  these  inorganic  atoms 
Emanates  to  every  being 
Whether  high  or  low  in  nature, 

Giving  instinct,  life,  and  reason,) 

Ever  can  explain  the  problem,  45 


Or  throw  any  light  upon  it. 

Let  the  breath  be  taken  from  us, 

Or  the  blood  cease  circulating, 

And  that  vital  spark  must  leave  us, 

1 hough  we  have  our  organism,  50 

With  its  carbon  and  albumen 
Perfect  as  when  life  was  in  us, 

With  all  other  combinations — 

Iron,  water,  and  phosphorus, — 

Not  one  substance  having  left  us  55 

In  that  act  of  dissolution 
Save  that  incorporeal  substance 
Which  composes  life  and  spirit. 

Blood  and  bone  and  hair  and  muscle 
Are  like  inorganic  matter,  60 

Lifeless  as  a mass  of  mica, 

And  as  free  from  all  sensation 

As  the  minerals  around  us 

From  which  all  organic  atoms 

Are  derived  which  form  our  bodies,  65 

And  continue  inorganic 

Till  life’s  vitalizing  essence 

Organizes  and  pervades  them.* 

Monera  or  annulata 

Rank  as  living  organisms  70 

Not  by  virtue  of  albumen, 

Carbon,  oxygen,  phosphorus, 

Or  what  else  may  constitute  them, 

But  by  virtue  of  their  life-germs 

And  their  vital  organisms  75 

From  life’s  universal  fountain. 

Talk  of  chemical  relations 
Or  molecular  attraction — 

Talk  of  laws  of  mechanism 
Or  material  combinations  ' 80 

Of  the  molecules  and  “gemmules” 
Forming  cell  or  protoplasm — 

To  explain  the  vital  action 
In  a living  organism! 

It  is  but  the  silliest  child’s  talk  85 

* “Thus  we  come  to  the  conclusion,  strange  at 
first  sight,  that  the  matter  constituting  the  living 
world  is  identical  with  that  which  forms  the  inor- 
ganic world." — Huxley,  On  the  Origin  of  Sfecies, 
p.  17. 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


347 


Thus  to  speak  of  laws  of  nature — 
Laws  of  force  and  mechanism — 
Which  had  never  been  enacted 
By  a king  or  legislator ; 

For  the  atoms  in  a crystal 
Take  their  place  to  form  its  angles 
And  their  marvelous  arrangement, 

As  this  writer  has  admitted, 

Under  laws  distinctly  acting 
And  especially  adapted 
To  such  crystalline  formation. 

But  while  Haeckel  has  to  stop  there, 
And  can  trace  the  work  no  further 
Than  such  law,  enlightened  reason 
Sees  a Lawgiver  beyond  it, 

And  intelligent  conception 
Planning  how  each  separate  atom 
In  each  crystallizing  process 
Shall  assume  its  place  in  order 
To  perfect  the  form  intended. 

Why  should  Haeckel  seek  to  trace  it 
To  a law  beyond  the  crystal 
Or  beyond  the  very  process 
By  which  atoms  are  adjusted, 

When  a law  requires  tracing 
Just  as  much  to  find  its  primal 
Or  intelligent  causation? 

Why  not  stop  and  say  that  crystals 
Form  themselves,  and  end  the  matter, 
Without  prior  laws  to  shape  them 
Or  direct  their  senseless  atoms? 

If  life  could  commence  from  nothing, 
Without  prior  life  to  start  with, 

As  so  baldly  claimed  by  Haeckel, 

Why  this  scientific  nonsense 
As  to  nature’s  laws  and  forces 
In  constructing  pearls  and  crystals, 
When  no  law  is  necessary 
As  a proximate  causation, 

Since  no  vital  law  was  needed 
For  primordial  vital  action 
In  that  lump  of  pure  albumen, 

As  when  monera  were  fashioned 
By  spontaneous  generation? 

If  such  vital  generation 


Could  be  thus  inaugurated 
Without  vital  laws  to  order 
And  arrange  organic  atoms 
In  that  moneron  primeval, 

Then  all  kinds  of  gems  and  crystals  50 
By  their  own  unaided  process 
Need  no  prior  laws  or  forces 
To  control  their  cycling  atoms, 

Since  life’s  origin  and  function 

And  the  very  vital  organs  55 

At  one  time  had  no  existence.* 

Life  or  sentient  organism 
Even  in  so  crude  a creature 
As  a moneron,  for  instance, 

Holds  intelligence  within  it,  60 

As  evinced  by  special  movements, 
Exercising  choice,  volition, 

And  the  lower  mental  instincts. 

If  life  first  originated 
By  existing  laws  of  nature,  65 

As  Professor  Haeckel  teaches, 

Then  could  law  create  an  instinct, 

Or  the  lowest  mental  powers, 

Such  as  monera  exhibit, 

If  there  were  710  mind  or  reason  70 

In  the  law  before  such  action ? 

Streams  rise  not  above  their  fountains, 

As  philosophy  inculcates, 

Hence  the  lowest  mental  power 
Could  not  come  into  existence  75 

By  a law  devoid  of  instinct 
Or  intelligence  in  some  form; 

And  if  such  a law  existed, 

Having  instinct  and  volition, 

To  confer  on  organisms,  80 

Prithee  how  did  law  thus  get  it 
If  there  is  no  vital  fountain 
From  which  laws  of  life  could  issue? 


* “We  have  before  this  become  acquainted  with 
the  simplest  of  all  species  of  organisms  in  the  mon- 
era,whose  entire  bodies  when  completely  developed 
consist  of  nothing  but  a semi-fluid  albuminous  lump; 
they  are  organistns  which  are  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance for  the  theory  of  the  first  origin  of  life." — ■ 
] Haeckel,  History  of  Creation , vol,  i, , p,  330, 


5 

xo 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


348 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


That  a moneron  has  instinct 
And  intrinsic  mental  powers , 

Even  intellect  and  spirit 
In  their  elemental  essence, 

Haeckel  will  not  dare  to  question, 
Since  the  intellect  of  Newton 
And  the  many-chambered  spirit 
Of  a Bacon  or  a Humboldt 
Were  developed  from  that  creature, 
And  its  nucleus  of  reason, 

As  he  most  distinctly  teaches, 

Since  it  is  the  primal  “parent 
Of  all  other  organisms”; 

And  as  common  sense  would  tell  us 
There  can  be  no  evolution 
Without  something  to  evolve  from, 
Hence  the  moneron  had  reason, 

And  obtained  it  from  the  process 
And  the  very  force  which  shaped  it 
Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

While  that  prior  law  which  formed  it 
By  spontaneous  generation 
Must  have  truly  been  possessed  of 
All  intrinsic  mental  powers, 

Life,  and  all  the  vital  functions, 

With  design  for  adaptation, 

Or  it  could  not  have  transferred  them 
To  this  prototype  and  parent 
Of  all  living  organisms, — 

Proving  life  to  have  existed. 

With  all  intellectual  powers, 

In  the  very  laws  of  nature 
Prior  to  that  generation 
Out  of  inorganic  matter. 

In  what  does  such  law  then  differ, 

As  intelligent  causation, 

From  our  ideas  of  Jehovah? 

Thus,  by  logical  induction 
Haeckel’s  origin  of  species 
And  of  life  and  mental  powers, 
Through  spontaneous  generation 
Caused  by  vital  laws  and  forces, 
Brings  us  to  the  same  conclusion 
To  which  Darwin  had  been  driven — 
That  an  Ultimate  Causation 


Through  His  living  laws  and  forces 
And  intelligent  enactments 
Formed  the  primal  organisms, 
Breathing  into  them  their  instincts 
And  incipient  germs  of  reason. 

With  the  paramount  importance 
Of  “spontaneous  generation” 

To  the  origin  of  species, 

As  Professor  Haeckel  views  it, 

Or  to  life’s  origination 
As  opposed  to  Darwin’s  doctrine, 
Which  admits  a God  to  start  with, 
He  is  forced  to  take  position 
As  his  most  important  datum 
And  his  strongest  proof  from  nature 
Of  such  possible  commencement, 
That  this  moneron  is  really 
At  the  bottom  of  the  ladder, 

And  the  very  “simplest”  creature 
In  the  universe  of  being, 

Since  its  limpid,  mucous  body, 
Semi-fluid  and  transparent, 

Seems  to  be  but  pure  albumen, 

Or  a formless  lump  of  sarcode 
And  of  homogeneous  substance, 
Destitute  of  parts  or  organs 
Or  composite  subdivisons; 

Yet  this  semi-fluid  globule, 

Startling  as  the  proposition 
Must  be  to  the  thoughtful  reader, 
Serves  all  necessary  functions 
Of  its  growth  and  procreation, 

With  digestive  organism 
And  assimilating  structure, 

With  protuberances  which  answer 
Purposes  of  locomotion 
And  of  changes  in  position; 

Yet  this  most  surprising  creature, 
With  so  many  living  functions 
Each  requiring  special  structure, 

Is  so  near  to  “anorgana,” 

And  distinctly  “homogeneous,” 
Haeckel  sagely  tells  his  readers 
That  all  previous  objection 
To  spontaneous  generation, 


5 

io 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


chap.  vii.  Spontaneous  Generation . 349 


On  account  of  animalcules 
Being  of  composite  structure, 

Is  completely  obviated, 

And  that  hence  this  simple  being 
Needed  no  originator  5 

Nor  primordial  plan  or  wisdom, — 

Thus  dispensing  with  creation 

In  the  sense  as  viewed  by  Darwin, 

Manifestly  superseding 

God  and  miracles  in  nature.  10 

Such  a fallacy  in  science 
And  stupidity  in  logic, — 

Such  a lack  of  information, 

Or  deliberate  suppression 

Of  the  simplest  truths  of  nature,  15 

In  a naturalist  so  noted, 

On  which  matters  so  important 
Hinge  as  origin  of  species 
And  the  cause  of  man’s  existence, 

Is,  to  say  the  least,  a pity,  20 

And  a pitiable  exhibit 
Of  the  highest  modern  standard 
Of  philosophy  and  science, 

As  now  held  by  many  writers. 

That  a man  of  such  achievements  25 
And  admitted  education 
Should  assume  that  living  creatures, 
Showing  voluntary  motion, 

Capable  of  ir^/-division, 

Growth  and  food-assimilation,  30 

Multiplying,  procreating, 

And  evolving  other  species 
Higher  in  the  scale  of  being, 

Are  devoid  of  parts  or  organs , 

J ust  because  he  can  not  sec  them  35 

Through  his  microscopic  lenses , 

Is  a fact  at  once  astounding 
And  unworthy  of  a schoolboy. 

Does  he  really  mean  to  tell  us, 

On  his  scientific  honor,  40 

That  no  part  of  organism 
Can  exist  beyond  our  vision, 

And  that  if  organic  functions 

And  their  operating  organs 

Are  beyond  the  reach  of  lenses  45 


They  can  not  exist  in  nature? 

If  not,  why  assert  so  roundly, 

And  defiantly,  I may  say, 

That  the  moneron  is  “partless,” — 
Absolutely  “homogeneous,” — 50 

Having  in  its  organism 
But  a “single  combination” 

Formed  of  carbon  and  albumen? 

Does  he  mean  to  say  distinctly 

That  this  “homogeneous”  creature  55 

Has  no  vital  organism, 

Or  respiratory  organs, 

Blood  or  circulating  fluids, 

Veins  or  ducts  or  other  channels, 

Though  he  sees  it  take  nutrition  60 

By  some  kind  of  endosmosis 
Through  these  unseen  pores  or  conduits, — 
No  digestive  apparatus, 

Though  it  lives  and  grows  by  feeding, — 
No  absorbent  organism  65 

And  no  secretitious  structure 
By  which  nutrimental  substance 
Is  distributed  or  added 
To  its  growth  and  reconstruction 
After  every  self-division?  70 

Does  he,  as  a close  observer, 

Careful  scientific  scholar, 

Or  an  analytic  thinker, 

Worthy  of  the  recognition 

Or  the  confidence  of  students,  75 

Hold  that  such  an  organism 

In  the  act  of  segregation 

Can  produce  that  “ pinching  ” process 

Which  takes  place  at  “^//"-divisions,” 

By  which  acts  of  propagation  80 

Are  specifically  conducted, 

Or,  when  in  the  act  of  moving, 

Thrusting  out  its  “ pseudopodia,” — 
“Processes”  like  “shapeless”  fingers  — 
Without  muscular  connections,  85 

Fibrous  ligaments  attaching 
Parts  thus  making  counter  movements 
To  such  portions  of  the  body 
As  are  girdled  and  protruded, 

And  that  all  these  living  motions 


90 


350 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


(Which  to  ordinary  mortals 
Would  imply  such  vital  organs, 

Even  if  they  could  not  see  them) 

Are  results  without  causation, — 

Ends  without  the  corresponding 
Means  or  organs  to  effect  them? 

Such  absurd  and  superficial 
Views  of  nature  and  her  problems 
Is  to-day  the  highest  standard 
Known  to  evolution-writers, 

And  the  most  advanced  conception 
Of  the  origin  of  species, — 

Haeckel  being  absolutely 
Held  the  foremost  of  such  writers 
On  the  continent  of  Europe. 

He  deliberately  tells  us 
That  the  moneron  is  partless, — 
Positively  “ homogeneous,” — 

Having  but  “ one  single  substance,” — 
Destitute  of  all  ingredients 
Save  this  carbonized  albumen, 

Since  we  can  not  see  the  outlines 
Of  a heterogeneous  structure 
Through  our  microscopic  lenses, 

And  might  just  as  well  assure  us 
That  a flea  or  midge  was  lungless 
And  devoid  of  inhalation, 

Since  spirometers  are  useless 
As  a test  of  expiration 
In  such  tiny  organisms, 

Or  that  veins  and  circulation 
In  a louse  was  simply  nonsense, 

Since  his  sphygmograph  is  worthless 
In  determining  the  function  ! 

It  is  known  to  every  student 
That  some  jelly-fish  and  mollusks, 
Such  as  salpians,  for  instance, 
Pteropods  and  comb-meduste 
And  pelagic  crab-like  species, 

Almost  perfectly  pellucid, 

Are  possessed  of  all  the  organs 
And  complexity  of  structure, 

As  true  science  must  assure  us, 

Found  among  crustacean  species, — 
Some  as  literally  transparent 


As  the  water  they  inhabit, 

With  perhaps  a slight  exception 
In  their  opalescent  shading, 

Giving  outline  to  their  structure 
And  a faint  view  of  their  organs; 

Yet  such  acalephoid  creatures 
Are  of  complicated  figure, 

Having  all  the  parts  and  organs — 
Heart  and  forceps,  nerves  and  muscles, 
Blood  and  circulating  conduits, — 

Of  opaque  and  firm  crustaceans. 

Hence,  what  scientific  folly 
In  a naturalist  like  Haeckel — 

Author  of  great  publications — 
Claiming  to  be  educated, 

Teaching  that  because  the  body 
Of  the  moneron  seems  partless 
To  his  superficial  survey, 

And  of  “homogeneous  substance,” 
Under  microscopic  power, 

It  is  therefore  without  organs 
Or  the  very  vital  structure 
Necessary  to  existence, 

Or  to  carry  on  those  functions 
Of  absorption  and  nutrition, 
Circulation  and  secretion, 

And  of  food-assimilation, 

Which  the  most  benighted  savage, 
Capable  of  counting  twenty, 

Should  consider  as  essential 
To  all  animal  existence, 

And  by  inference  as  present, 

Even  if  the  subtle  process 

And  the  occult  organism 

Should  be  hidden  from  the  vision ! 

Is  it  possible  the  leading 
Advocate  of  Evolution 
On  the  continent  of  Europe — 
Darwin’s  greatest  coadjutor — 

Author,  naturalist,  “Professor” 

In  a leading  institution — 

“University  of  Jena” — 

Lacks  the  common  sense  and  genius 
Of  an  ordinary  savage  ? 

Yet  such  men  assume  to  tell  us 


5 

io 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


35i 


That  life  really  came  from  nothing, — 
That  no  God  was  necessary 
To  the  origin  of  species, 

But  that  primal  organisms 
Actually  were  self -created,  5 

With  capacity  and  power 
To  create  all  other  beings  ! 

These  are  men  so  well  adapted 

To  the  intellectual  training 

Of  the  rising  generation — 30 

Men  of  such  profound  researches 

And  great  scientific  knowledge — 

That  they  occupy  positions 

In  collegiate  institutions 

Giving  .bent  to  mental  culture,  15 

While  incapable  of  looking 

Through  the  cuticle  of  structure, 

Or  by  mental  observation 
And  the  microscope  of  reason 
Seeing  farther  into  nature  20 

Than  a piece  of  glass  will  take  them ! 

This  most  erudite  exponent 
Of  Darwinian  fatalism 
And  primordial  self-creation 
Out  of  inorganic  matter,  25 

In  his  vaunting  rodomontade 
Claims  to  overthrow  religion 
And  dethrone  the  God  of  Christians, 

With  all  ideas  of  creation 
By  direct  almighty  power,  30 

Through  spontaneous  generation 
Of  this  “homogeneous”  creature 
Which  has  neither  “ parts”  nor  “ organs ,” 
Since  this  unapproached  expounder 
Of  the  mysteries  of  nature  35 

And  of  Darwin’s  great  discovery 
Fails  to  see  them  through  his  lenses! 
Notwithstanding  Darwin  tells  him 
That  each  living,  moving  creature, 

Is  composed  of  parts  and  organs  40 

“Numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,” — 
Notwithstanding  Huxley  shows  him 
That  no  single  organism 
Is  of  “homogeneous  substance”! 

Even  Haeckel  contradicts  it,  45 


And  distinctly  shows  that  every 
Form  of  living  organism 
Must  consist  of  “fluid  water” 

As  its  principal  ingredient 

In  addition  to  albumen  50 

And  its  carbon  combination  ! * 

How  then,  in  the  name  of  reason, 

Can  the  moneron  be  wholly 
Formed  of  just  “one  single  substance ” 

And  that  substance  “pure  albumen,”  55 
When  so  largely  formed  of  “water”? 

And  how  can  the  largest  portion 
Of  the  moneron  be  water, 

If  there  are  no  pores  or  channels 

In  the  creature’s  organism  60 

Suited  to  such  circulation  ? 

And  how,  we  may  ask  this  author, 

Can  such  water-ducts  or  conduits 

Be  supposed  to  have  existence 

In  this  lump  of  “pure  albumen,”  65 

Since  his  microscopic  lenses 

Fail  to  bring  to  light  such  structure 

Or  such  complex  organism! 

Haeckel’s  whole  absurd  assumption 
Of  spontaneous  generation  70 

Based  on  living  organisms 
Formed  of  but  a “simple  substance” 

And  without  organic  structure, 

Therefore  clearly  falls  to  pieces 

By  his  own  explicit  teaching  75 

And  preposterous  contradictions! 

Will  Professor  Haeckel  tell  us 
That  the  atmosphere  is  partless. 

Without  molecules  or  atoms, 

Though  composed  of  separate  gases,  80 
Since  he  fails  to  see  its  granules 
Through  his  magnifying  lenses, 


* “ In  all  living  bodies , without  exception,  there 
is  a certain  quantity  of  water  combined  in  a peculiar 
way  with  solid'matter." 

“ All  animals  and  all  plants — in  fact  all  organ- 
isms— consist  in  great  measure  of  fluid  water,  which 
combines  in  a peculiar  manner  with  other  sub- 
stances.”— Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  voL  i., 
pp.  327,  329. 


352 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Notwithstanding  Tyndall  tells  him 
That  they  are  but  “grains"  suspended 
In  the  luminiferous  ether!  * 

Nonsense,  cries  Professor  Haeckel, 
Atmosphere  is  “homogeneous,”  5 

Hence  no  “grains”  can  be  “suspended” 
In  this  luminiferous  ether, 

Since  I fail  to  see  such  “atoms” 

With  my  microscope’s  assistance! 

But  the  great  Sir  Isaac  Newton  10 

Tells  why  Haeckel  can  not  see  them, 
Though  their  corpuscles  are  real 
And  of  infinite  perfection.! 

Then  how  knows  Professor  Haeckel 
That  the  moneron  is  “formless”  15 

And  of  “homogeneous  substance,” 

When  it  might  have  parts  and  organs, — 
“Secret,”  “noble  works  of  nature,” — 
“Numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,” 

Yet  with  corpuscles  transparent,  20 

Made  invisible  through  lenses, 

As  are  those  of  air  and  gases? 

Let  this  great  Darwinian  writer, 

Who  would  overthrow  Creation 

With  a lump  of  pure  albumen,  25 

If  he  wants  to  get  an  jdea 

Of  his  ignorance  of  nature, 

And  his  limited  conception 
Of  organic  life  and  structure, 

As  conclusively  established  30 

In  this  most  absurd  assumption 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

Try  to  see  the  grains  of  odor 

Of  a pink  or  tuberosa 

Floating  through  the  air  around  him, — 35 

Try  to  visualize  its  atoms 

Under  microscopic  power, — 


*“  Within  our  atmosphere  exists  a second  and 
finer  atmosphere  [ether]  in  which  the  atoms  of  oxy- 
gen and  nitrogen  hang  lihe  suspended  grains." — 
Tyndai.l,  Heat  as  a Mode  of  Motion,  p.  345. 

f “It  seems  impossible  to  see  the  secret  and  more 
noble  works  of  Nature  within  the  corpuscles , by 
reason  of  their  transparency." — Newton,  quoted 
in  Hcrschcl  on  Light,  Art.  1145, 


And  when  he  has  failed  to  see  them, 

If  he  wants  to  be  consistent, 

He  should  then  denounce  effluvium  40 

As  a fallacy  of  science, 

Since  it  is  beyond  his  vision, 

With  the  microscope  to  aid  it! 

Must  the  world  admit  his  doctrine, 

Which  he  virtually  insists  on,  45 

That  no  such  a thing  as  fragrance, 

Having  molecules  or  atoms, 

Can  exist  as  real  substance, 

Since  he  fails  to  visualize  it 
Under  microscopic  power?  50 

Should  he  chance  to  lose  the  organ 
Which  alone  conveys  the  secret 
Of  such  substantive  existence, 

Must  the  masses  of  creation, 

Who  retain  their  normal  senses,  55 

Yield  the  point  to  his  assumption 
That  effluvium  is  nonsense 
And  a puerile  superstition, 

Since  his  nose  will  not  detect  it, 

Or  since  microscopic  lenses  60 

Can  not  show  the  emanations? 

This  is  simply  what  he  tells  us 
Of  the  moneron, — a being 
Having  life  and  mental  powers, 

Capable  of  procreation,  65 

Growth  by  food-assimilation, 

And  with  all  the  usual  functions 
Absolutely  necessary 
To  an  animal’s  existence, 

Yet  with  neither  “parts”  nor  “organs,” — 70 
Strictly,  purely  “homogeneous,” — 

Formed  of  but  “one  single  substance,” — 
Since  his  magnifying  glasses 
Do  not  show  its  organism 
Or  its  heterogeneous  structure!  75 

Will  he  say  that  sound-discharges 
Have  no  actual  existence 
As  corpuscular  emissions 
(Proved  beyond  all  doubt  or  question 
In  the  two  preceding  chapters),  80 

Since  their  molecules  or  atoms 
Can  not  be  observed  through  lenses? 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


O £ o 
ODO 


Can  he  see  the  germs  of  small-pox 
Circulating  round  the  pest-house 
Emanating  from  the  clothing 
Of  the  nurses  or  attendants, 

Hurling  pestilence  and  horror  5 

Through  the  air,  infecting  passers 
As  they  near  the  lazzaroni? 

Will  he  say  that  small-pox  atoms 
Are  a fallacy  of  science, 

Merely  based  on  superstition,  10 

Really  having  no  existence, 

Since  his  microscopic  lenses 
Fail  in  magnifying  power 
To  reveal  the  tiny  granules? 

This  is  what  he  flatly  tells  us  15 

Of  the  moneron,  the  basis 
Of  his  law  of  Evolution, 

That  it  must  be  “homogeneous,” 

Hence  a probable  production 
Of  spontaneous  generation,  20 

Since  his  magnifying  lenses 
Do  not  visualize  its  “organs”! 

Furthermore,  a score  of  questions 
Just  as  pertinently  puzzling 
And  unanswerably  crushing  25 

Could  be  asked  and  iterated, 

Each  of  which  would  show  the  doctrine 

Of  spontaneous  generation 

To  be  pure  and  simple  nonsense, — 

Yet  insisted  on  by  Haeckel  30 

As  the  absolute  foundation 
Of  the  origin  of  species, 

And  of  course  the  only  basis 
Which  he  finds  for  evolution. 

Hence,  as  all  his  special  pleading  35 
In  support  of  Darwin’s  idea 
Of  transmuted  organisms 
Under  natural  selection 
Or  survival  of  the  fittest, 

Hinges  on  this  supposition  40 

Of  spontaneous  generation 
As  the  origin  of  species, 

(Since  if  God  be  once  admitted 
As  the  Author  of  the  first  forms, 

As  so  frankly  done  by  Darwin,  45 


All  objection  to  creation 
Of  each  individual  species 
By  the  fiat  of  Jehovah 
Is  at  once  annihilated, 

As  two  plans , with  perfect  wisdom  50 
And  unlimited  resources, 

For  the  origin  of  species 

Would  be  infinitely  useless 

And  absurdly  inconsistent 

With  an  orderly  arrangement,  55 

As  will  soon  be  shown  more  fully,) 

It  must  therefore  clearly  follow, 

As  a logical  conclusion, 

That  the  whole  attempt  of  Haeckel 

In  defence  of  evolution  60 

Must  be  literally  abortive 

If  his  fundamental  basis 

Of  developmental  progress 

In  spontaneous  generation 

Shall  be  shown  to  be  preposterous, — 65 

Which,  if  not  already  settled, 

Will  be  to  the  satisfaction 
Of  the  most  fastidious  reader 
Ere  this  chapter  is  concluded. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem  to  Haeckel  70 
Even  that  low  form  of  instinct 
Which  the  moneron  exhibits, 

And  that  life  which  animates  it, 

In  its  circumscribed  existence, 

Are  substantial  forms  of  being , 75 

Real  as  is  sound  or  odor, 

And  a problem  no  more  startling 
Than  the  cycling  rays  from  magnets 
Or  electrical  discharges, 

Which  no  vision  recognizes,  80 

And  no  multiplying  power 
Of  our  microscopic  lenses 
Can  unfold  to  observation, — 

No  more  marvelous  than  light-rays 
Darting  through  a block  of  crystal, — 85 

And  no  more  a source  of  wonder 
Than  the  circulating  granules 
Of  the  small-pox  just  referred  to. 

Naturalists  who  look  no  deeper 
Into  living  organisms, 


90 


354 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


And  can  comprehend  no  farther 
Nature’s  intricate  resources 
Than  the  microscope  will  lead  them, — 
Who  can  only  see  mechanics, 

With  its  simple  operations,  5 

In  the  wonders  of  an  instinct — 

In  the  subtile  vital  forces 
Or  the  marvels  of  a spirit — 

Never  ought  to  speak  of  science, — 

Are  unfit  to  talk  with  Nature  10 

Or  to  even  loose  her  sandals. 

Such  men  should  be  struck  by  lightning, 
As  the  only  means  to  show  them 
That  one  “nothing”  may  be  substance, 
Though  no  sense  can  recognize  it  15 
And  no  glass  can  visualize  it, 

Only  in  its  operations 
Or  effects  produced  in  action, 

Just  as  life  and  mental  powers 

Prove  themselves  to  be  substantial  20 

By  their  physical  achievements, 

Acting  through  corporeal  structure. 

Since  Professor  Haeckel  tells  us, 

With  such  constant  iteration, 

That  the  moncron  is  nothing  25 

But  a lump  of  pure  “ albumen," 

Formed  of  but  “one  single  substance,” 
And  hence  strictly  “homogeneous,” 

We  may  fairly  ask  the  question — 

Is  it  possible  this  chemist,  30 

Who  would  supersede  creation, 

And  this  scientific  scholar, 

With  the  keys  to  Nature’s  archives, 

Does  not  know  that  pure  albumen 
Is  itself  composed  of  granules  35 

And  most  wondrously  composite, 

Had  we  microscopic  lenses 
Strong  enough  to  show  its  structure 
And  the  elements  which  form  it, 

Having  atoms  separated  40 

Into  granulated  spherules, 

Till  expanded  interstices 
Would  seem  equal  to  the  globules? 

That  such  globular  construction 
Of  this  “homogeneous”  substance  45 


Is  not  seen  with  interstices 
Such  as  kegs  of  shot  exhibit, 

Is  for  want  of  such  improvements 
In  our  optical  inventions 
As  will  verify  my  statement,  50 

And  thus  magnify  this  substance 
To  its  elemental  globules. 

These  again  would  prove  but  clusters 
In  sub-elemental  structure, 

As  philosophy  must  teach  us  55 

Were  this  power  still  augmented, 

Each  a group  of  smaller  granules, 

And  so  on  ad  infinitum , — 

Each  atomic  subdivision 
Being  but  a mass  of  atoms  60 

To  that  eye  which  scans  and  measures 
Primal  elements  of  Nature! 

This  is  true  of  every  granule 
Of  our  flesh  or  brain  or  marrow, 

Being  but  a group  of  globules  65 

Each  composed  of  countless  units, 

While  the  life-blood  circulating 
In  each  living  organism, 

From  the  highest  to  the  lowest, 

Whether  sanious  or  limpid — 70 

Visible  or  quite  transparent 
As  in  lower  organisms — 

Is  not  only  constituted 

Thus  of  countless  combinations 

Far  beyond  the  power  of  lenses,  75 

But  the  very  blood-conductors — 

Veins  and  arteries  which  hold  it — 

May  be  far  beyond  the  power 

Of  the  vision  when  assisted 

By  the  strongest  magnifiers.*  80 

* “The  investigation  of  the  phenomena  of  circu- 
lation has  exhibited  the  mode  in  which  arterial 
blood  is  distributed  over  the  body  in  minute  vessels 
not  appreciable  by  the  naked  eye,  and  often  not 
even  with  the  microscope , and  so  numerous  that  it  is 
impossible  for  the  finest-pointed  instrument  to  be 
forced  through  the  skin  without  pcnctiating  one 
and  perhaps  several.  ...  As  the  precise  arrange- 
ment of  these  minute  vessels  is  not  perceptible  by  the 
eye,  even  when  aided  by  powerful  instruments , this 
arrangement  has  given  rise  to  controversy.” — “We 


Chav.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


355 


Here  are  small  arterial  vessels, 

As  this  learned  author  tells  us, 

Out  of  reach  of  human  vision 
Aided  by  the  strongest  lenses, 

Having  malls  composed  of  fibers  5 

Tubes  of  complex  organism — 

Filled  with  corpuscles  or  globules 
Swimming  freely  through  the  channels 
In  the  liquor  called  sanguinis, 

And  each  globule  duly  coated  10 

With  a pellicle  preventing 
All  commingling  of  its  contents 
With  those  of  its  jostling  neighbors. 

Still,  within  these  crimson  globules 
(So  far  out  of  reach  of  lenses  15 

That  the  conduits  which  convey  them 
Are  beyond  the  range  of  vision 
With  the  microscope’s  assistance) 

Float  unnumbered  separate  granules 
Of  the  common  mineral,  iron j 20 

For  although  we  say  “solution,” 

In  our  laboratory  parlance, 

Every  atom  of  this  metal 
Is  an  actual  mineral  substance, 

Only  vastly  comminuted, — 25 

Just  as  literally  and  really 
Iron  molecules  and  granules 
As  are  cannon-balls  or  grape-shot, 

Had  we  optical  inventions 

Of  sufficient  strength  to  view  them  30 

In  their  absolute  condition, 

Which,  without  a hesitation, 

I predict  will  yet  be  fashioned, 

Though  it  may  be  generations 

Ere  the  work  will  be  accomplished.  35 

And  besides  these  iron  granules 
In  each  corpuscle  or  globule 
Of  this  circulating  fluid, 

There  are  fibrine  and  albumen — 

see  blood  proceeding  to  the  liver,  and  the  vessels 
that  convey  it  ramifying  in  the  texture  of  that  vis- 
cus,  and  becoming  so  minute  as  to  escape  detection , 
even  zvhen  the  eye  is  aided  by  a powerful  micro- 
scope."— Dunglison,  Human  Physiology,  pp.  72, 
475- 


Atoms  absolutely  present — 40 

Chlorides , carbonates,  and  phosphates, 

Water,  with  its  myriad  globules, 

Grains  of  common  salt  and  potash, 

Lime  and  sulphur  and  phosphorus, 

Sugar  also,  and  magnesia , — 45 

Each  in  particles  unnumbered, 

And  as  perfect  in  their  structure 
As  are  pebble-stones  and  boulders 
Washed  along  a mountain  streamlet, 

Yet  so  infinite  in  smallness  50 

That  the  stream  itself  is  hidden ; — 

Yes,  its  very  banks  and  margins 
Are  concealed  from  human  vision 
With  the  most  perfected  lenses 
In  the  present  state  of  optics.  55 

Yet  this  scientific  (!)  Haeckel, 

Who  would  with  a single  globule 
Of  albumen  hurl  creation 
And  its  author  from  existence. 

Through  the  Archimedean  power  60 

Of  spontaneous  generation, 

Would  at  once  assure  the  reader 
That  these  facts  are  simple  nonsense 
And  without  the  least  foundation; 

For  since  nothing  can  be  real  65 

In  a living  organism 
Which  our  microscopic  lenses 
Do  not  bring  to  observation, 

As  the  moneron  has  shown  us, 

Hence  how  manifestly  foolish  70 

Talking  thus  of  blood  with  iron, 

Potash,  sulphur,  and  phosphorus , 

Water,  sugar,  and  magnesia, 

Separately  floating  in  it — 

All  within  a single  globule — 75 

When  the  very  blood  is  hidden, 

And  the  arteries  which  hold  it, 

Even  if  the  sight  is  aided 
By  the  magnifying  power 
Of  our  most  perfected  glasses!  80 

If  this  statement  does  not  fairly 
Represent  Professor  Haeckel 
And  the  histologic  compass 
Of  his  views  of  organism, 


356 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Let  him  then  renounce  his  nonsense 
Of  spontaneous  generation 
Based  on  “homogeneous  substance” 

In  the  body  of  a being 

With  an  organized  existence — 5 

Living,  moving,  feeding,  growing, 

Capable  of  procreation 
By  ingenious  self-division, — 

Yet,  according  to  his  ideas, 

Absolutely  pure  albumen,  10 

Destitute  of  parts  or  organs, 

Just  because  he  sees  no  structure 
Under  microscopic  power! 

When,  in  future  generations, 
Microscopes  shall  be  perfected  15 

(As  I have  no  doubt  they  will  be 
By  new  principles  of  focus 
And  new  modes  of  combination 
In  improvements  yet  undreamt  of) 
Monera  will  show  their  structure,  20 

And  their  vital  circulation 
Ramifying  and  pervading 
What  will  then  be  viewed  with  wonder 
As  a complex  organism 
Formed  of  molecules  and  vessels — 25 

Blood  and  heterogeneous  organs — 

“ Numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,” 

As  so  strongly  put  by  Darwin, — 

Since  their  livings  moving  functions, 
Which  require  such  a structure,  30 

Can  be  seen  already  present ; 

Just  as  nebulous  formations 
In  the  firmament’s  vast  ocean, 

Once  but  homogeneous  patches 

Of  the  dust  of  anorgana,  35 

As  astronomers  surveyed  them, 

Have  by  telescopic  power 
Been  resolved  to  suns  and  systems 
Clustering  in  countless  thousands, 

Each  a planetary  center,  40 

With  its  planets,  moons,  and  comets, 

Like  our  present  solar  system; 

No  doubt  with  green  worlds  by  millions, 
Peopled  with  their  myriad  races, 

And  the  infinite  gradations  45 


Of  organic  forms  of  being. 

Thus  the  telescope  illustrates, 

In  its  marvelous  transformation 

Of  those  falsely-viewed  arcana 

To  the  true  and  scientific,  50 

What  might  also  be  expected 

Of  the  shallow  suppositions 

Of  such  scientists  as  Haeckel 

In  regard  to  organisms 

And  the  histologic  secrets  55 

Covered  by  the  living  tissue, 

Could  the  magnifying  lenses 

Of  our  microscopes  be  carried 

To  the  same  extent  of  power 

And  unlimited  improvement  60 

Of  those  great,  all-seeing  monsters, 

Found  in  late  observatories. 

Am  I too  severe  on  Haeckel, 

In  thus  earnestly  arraigning 

Him  for  such  a superficial  65 

And  sophistical  assumption 

As  a being  without  organs 

Suited  to  its  living  functions, — 

Talking  thus  of  pure  albumen 

With  its  “ single  combination,”  70 

And  that  combination  carbon, 

When  all  analytic  science 

Teaches  us  that  pure  albumen 

Is  composed  of  many  other 

Elements  of  greater  value  75 

In  the  aggregate  than  carbon ?* 

Then  I might  still  further  ask  him 
How  he  knows  with  such  precision 
That  he  makes  the  proclamation 
As  a settled  fact  of  science  80 

That  this  little  organism 
Must  consist  of  pure  albumen 
Rather  than  be  formed  of  fibrine, 

When  no  chemist  has  been  able 
To  distinguish  from  each  other  85 

Substances  thus  designated, 

Even  after  analyzing 

* See  any  statement  of  the  chemical  combina- 
tions of  albumen , — Liebig,  Dalton,  Edwards,  or 
Faraday. 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


357 


And  manipulating  masses, 

Not  thus  limited  to  granules 
Smaller  than  the  smallest  pins’  heads?* 

This  great  revolutionizer 
And  upsetter  of  creation  5 

Has  no  right  to  feel  offended 
At  these  raking  expositions 
Of  his  ignorance  of  science, 

After  Agassiz  had  suffered 

So  unfairly  and  unjustly  10 

As  a scientific  author 

Of  a world-wide  reputation 

By  his  egotistic  satire 

And  uncalled-for  criticisms. 

Having  thus  forewarned  the  reader  15 
By  sufficient  exposition 
Of  Professor  Haeckel’s  reckless 
And  ridiculous  assertions 
As  to  living  organisms 
Being  “ homogeneous  ” substance, — 20 

“Formless,”  “partless,”  living  creatures , — 
“ Organisms ” without  “organs” — 

That  a due  appreciation 
Of  his  chemical  achievements 
And  authority  in  science  25 

May  be  always  fresh  before  him, 

Let  us  now  review  this  question 
Of  spontaneous  generation 
As  a rational  assumption, 

And  see  how  it  harmonizes  30 

With  the  well-known  laws  of  nature 
And  established  facts  of  science. 

It  can  only  seem  a reckless 
And  unwarranted  position 

* “ Physiologists  have  been  accustomed  to  speak 
of  the  albuminous  tissues,  but  the  author  believes 
he  is  justified  in  asserting  that  no  chemical  difference 
exists  by  which  albumen  and  fibrine  can  be  cer- 
tainly distinguished.” — Carpenter,  Animal  Phy- 
siology, p.  294, 

“Chemical  analysis  has  led  to  the  remarkable 
result  that  fibrine  and  albumen  contain  the  same 
organic  elements,  united  in  the  same  proportions, 
so  that  two  analyses,  the  one  of  fibrine  and  the 
other  of  albumen , do  not  differ." — Liebig,  Organic 
Chemistry,  p.  41. 


To  assume,  as  does  this  author,  35 

That  a sentient  organism, 

Having  all  the  vital  functions 

For  its  growth  and  procreation 

And  for  voluntary  movement 

As  the  moneron  exhibits,  40 

Should  be  formed  by  chance  commingling 

Or  the  accidental  blending 

Of  pure  inorganic  atoms, 

Through  some  law  like  gravitation 
Or  molecular  attraction,  45 

Without  prior  life  or  being 
In  the  universe  of  nature — 

Without  intellect  behind  it 
To  conceive  such  combination — 
Independently  of  any  50 

Purpose,  plan,  or  supervision, 

To  direct  the  lifeless  atoms 
And  their  relative  positions 
To  effect  results  so  wondrous; 

For  “spontaneous  generation”  55 

Can  mean  only  accidental 
Or  chance  mingling  of  such  atoms, 

Unless  law , with  vital  powers, 

And  inherently  embodying 

Intellect  and  preconception  60 

Had  a previous  existence, 

And  with  absolute  foreknowledge 
Ordered  and  arranged  the  process, 

As  I have  before  suggested; 

And  such  law  without  lawgiver  65 

Or  an  intellectual  power 
To  ordain  and  execute  it, 

Is  absurdly  inconsistent 
With  all  orderly  proceedings, — 

Common  sense  no  less  than  science  70 
Utterly  repudiating 
So  irrational  an  idea. 

To  assume  such  law  primordial , 

Or  as  ultimate  causation 
Of  organic  life  and  being,  75 

Without  legislative  power 
To  enact  and  then  enforce  it, 

Is  but  simply  designating 
God  as  law,  another  title 


358 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


For  such  infinite  conception, 

Which,  instead  of  aiding  Haeckel 
In  his  meaningless  farago 
Of  “ spontaneous  generation  ” 

“ Out  of  inorganic  matter,”  5 

Overthrows  his  atheism 

By  a simple  change  of  titles 

And  the  palpable  admission 

Of  the  same  primordial  essence 

In  the  name  of  Law  and  Order  10 

As  the  infinite  Creator 

And  the  Cause  of  all  causation. 

As  no  life  or  mental  power , 

Prior  to  such  “generation 

Out  of  inorganic  matter,”  15 

Is  admitted  by  this  author 

As  supposable  in  nature, 

Either  in  a law  or  primal 
Authorship  of  such  enactment, 

Hence,  when  stripped  of  all  disguises  20 
And  the  “scientific”  verbiage 
In  which  he  involves  the  subject, 

Moncra  originated, 

And  with  them  all  life  and  being , 

By  an  accidental  union  25 

Of  pure  inorganic  atoms, 

As  by  chance  they  came  together 
By  the  law  of  gravitation 
And  molecular  attraction, 

And  by  which  they  mixed  and  mingled  30 
In  such  complicated  manner 
As  to  form  organic  structure, 

Yet  with  such  intrinsic  order 
And  such  marvelous  arrangement — 

Every  atom  so  precisely  35 

Placed  within  the  vital  system — 

And  all  parts  so  well  adjusted 
As  to  cause  a living,  moving, 

Sentient,  thinking  organism, 

With  such  complex  vital  forces  40 

Interacting  through  these  atoms 
Falling  thus  by  chance  together, 

That  nutritious  food  was  wanted 
Through  an  appetite  implanted 
By  which  growth  and  reproduction  45 


Were  at  once  inaugurated, 

All  by  accident,  remember, 

Or  a chance  co-operation 
Of  a little  dirt  and  carbon ! 

While  the  greatest  living  genius,  50 

Skillful  naturalist  or  chemist, 

Fails  to  form  the  smallest  diamond 
With  its  “single  combination” 

Of  the  element  of  “carbon,” 

And  the  intellectual  powers  55 

Of  the  chemical  profession 
All  combined  and  concentrated 
Can  not  form  a hair  or  feather , 

Much  less  animate  a globule 

Of  this  fibrine  or  albumen,  60 

Changing  it  to  living  structure. 

One  would  think  such  startling  problems 
And  unsolvable  enigmas 
As  these  monera  present  us 
Should  give  ample  illustration  65 

Even  to  the  mind  of  Haeckel, 

That  above  all  organisms 
And  all  inorganic  matter, 

And  above  the  laws  and  forces 

And  the  elements  of  nature  70 

Which  combine  to  form  such  structure, 

There  exists  an  intellectual 

And  a vital  source  of  power 

To  which  organized  existence 

Owes  its  origin,  and  from  which  75 

Every  vital  germ  has  issued ; 

And  that  minds  thus  emanated 
From  such  intellectual  fountain 
As  an  all-pervading  substance, 

Might  be  real  and  substantial  80 

Forms  of  entity  and  selfhood, 

Even  capable  of  ego 

Or  of  conscious  sentient  being 

After  earthly  dissolution. 

I would  press  upon  the  reader,  85 

As  a most  important  matter, 

If  materialistic  ideas, 

Which  deny  the  soul’s  existence 
As  an  entity  substantial, 

Ever  found  a place  of  lodgement  90 


Chap.  VII.  SpOtltUUeOUS 

Even  for  a single  moment 
In  his  mental  organism, 

And  reiterate  the  question 
Which  I have  before  propounded — 

Is  it  more  opposed  to  reason  5 

Or  the  principles  of  science 
That  the  soul  or  spirit-essence 
Or  that  life  should  be  substantial — 

Free  from  grosser  forms  of  matter — 

Than  that  Luminiferous  Ether  10 

Filling  interstellar  regions, 

Circulating  through  the  texture 
Of  the  diamond  and  the  crystal, 

Should  be  “ substance  ” like  a “jelly,” 
Having  properties  of  solids , 15 

As  the  entire  world  of  science 
Now  maintains  without  a question?* 

Tyndall,  Haeckel,  Huxley,  Darwin, 

And  that  class  of  liberal  thinkers, 

Have  no  trouble  in  believing  20 

In  “ this  all-pervading  substance ,” 

With  a structure  like  a “jelly,” 

Free  to  run  in  undulations 
Through  the  substance  of  the  diamond, 
Which  no  microscopic  power  25 

Can  reveal  to  human  vision, 

Which  no  analytic  process 
Known  to  chemistry  or  science 
Ever  brought  within  our  knowledge, 

And  which  even  as  an  inference,  30 

Based  on  sound  as  undulations, 

Is,  as  has  been  shown  most  fully 
In  the  three  preceding  chapters, 

* ‘ ‘ The-  luminiferous  ether  has  definite  mechanical 
properties.  It  is  almost  infinitely  more  attenuated 
than  any  known  gas , but  its  properties  are  those  of 
a solid , rather  than  those  of  a gas.  It  resembles 
jelly  rather  than  air.  A body  thus  constituted  may 
have  its  boundaries;  but  although  the  ether  may 
not  be  co-extensive  with  space,  we  at  all  events 
know  that  it  extends  as  far  as  the  most  distant 
visible  stars.  In  fact.it  is  the  vehicle  of  their  light, 
and  without  it  they  could  not  be  seen.  This  all- 
pervading  substance  takes  up  their  molecular  trem- 
ors and  conveys  them  with  inconceivable  rapidity 
to  our  organs  of  vision.” — Tyndall,  Fragments  of 
Science,  p.  io. 


Generation.  359 

Absolutely  based  on  nothing; 

Yet  to  them  the  simple  mention  35 

Of  the  intellect  as  substance 
Or  that  soul  may  be  substantial , 

And  an  entity  of  being 
Separate  from  blood  and  muscle, 

Is  outside  the  pale  of  science,  40 

Or  a baseless  human  fancy, — 

While  the  infinite  conception 
Of  an  “all-pervading  Substance,” 

No  more  wonderful  than  ether , 

From  Whom  all  things  have  proceeded,  45 
Infinitely  scientific 
When  compared  to  Tyndall’s  ether 
As  a logical  assumption, 

Since  immeasurably  essential 

To  the  origin  of  being  50 

And  organic  forms  of  structure, 

Is  with  them  the  greatest  error 

And  the  falsest  superstition 

Which  the  world  was  ever  cursed  with. 

Yes,  with  “all-pervading  substance”  55 
Universally  admitted 
As  a postulate  of  science 
In  this  luminiferous  ether , — 

Without  any  use  whatever 
In  the  polity  of  Nature, — 60 

Yet,  as  soon  as  God  is  mentioned 
As  a scientific  thesis, 

Such  an  “all-pervading  Substance” 

Is  pronounced  the  sheerest  nonsense 
By  such  scientists  as  Haeckel.  65 

Though  at  once  admitting  ether — 

Which  has  really  no  existence, 

Since  without  a use  in  nature 
And  beyond  all  human  knowledge — 

They  can  not  endure  the  idea  70 

That  another  “all-pervading 
Substance”  should  be  named  or  thought  of 
As  within  the  pale  of  science ! 

Yes,  one  “all-pervading  substance,” 
Though  without  the  least  foundation  75 
Or  necessity  in  nature, 

Can  be  ranked  as  scientific 
By  such  analytic  thinkers. 


360 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Yet  a God  no  more  “pervading,” 
Though  of  infinite  importance 
To  the  idea  of  creation, 

And  essential  to  the  logic 
Of  all  organized  existence, 

And  as  rational  solution 
Of  the  mysteries  of  being 
Must  be  instantly  discarded 
As  a puerile  superstition; 

While  this  Hercules  in  science, 

Who  would  overturn  creation 
By  the  “homogeneous”  lever 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

With  a moneron  for  fulcrum, 

Sees  no  kind  of  difficulty 
In  this  wondrous  organism 
Having  wrought  its  own  creation, — 

“ Coming ” into  life  and  being, 

As  he  has  himself  expressed  it, 

“Out  of  inorganic  matter.” 

And  while  special  acts  of  power 
By  an  infinite  Creator, 

Through  which  living  organisms 
Were  originally  constructed, 

Are  incredible  and  wholly 
Inadmissible  by  science, 

It  is  every  way  consistent 
With  philosophy  and  reason, 

As  this  writer  views  the  subject, 

That  this  wondrous  organism 
(Still  more  wondrous  since  its  organs 
Are  invisible  while  real) 

Should  have  been  its  own  creator, 
And  thus  have  originated 
Not  alone  its  own  existence 
But  the  life  of  every  being 
On  the  land  or  in  the  water, 

Which  now  lives  or  ever  did  live, 
Since  this  great  Darwinian  author 
Sends  it  forth  as  scientific, 

And  would  have  us  all  believe  it, 
That  from  this  small  organism 
Wolves  and  monkeys  have  developed, 
While  Professor  Haeckel  even 
Is  its  lineal  descendant. 


Thus  this  “simplest  organism” 

In  the  chain  of  living  creatures 
Forms  the  basis  of  “creation,” 

Or  that  “coming  into  being” 

“By  spontaneous  generation” 

“Out  of  inorganic  matter”; 

And  so  full  of  faith  is  Haeckel 
In  the  truth  of  such  “creation” 
That  the  chemists  of  the  future, 

As  he  makes  the  bold  prediction, 
Will  produce  such  living  creatures,- 
Turning  out  from  laboratories 
Swarms  of  monera  and  monads, 
Using  only  in  the  process 
Simple  carbon  and  albumen. 

But,  without  prophetic  vision, 

I forewarn  this  sapient  prophet 
That  if  chemistry  shall  ever 
Bring  to  light  a living  creature, 
From  whatever  laboratory, 

Out  of  inorganic  matter — 

Or  I will  include  organic — 

Even  with  the  aid  of  carbon 
And  the  most  refined  albumen, 
Mixed  with  vegetable  decoctions, 
He  can  rest  assured  most  fully 
It  was  there  a living  creature 
Prior  to  the  seeming  process 
Which  created  life  from  nothing! 

It  was  there  an  organism, 

With  its  spark  of  vital  essence, 
Which  I designate  the  life-germ , 
Floating  in  the  air  or  water 
Or  albuminous  materials, 

Or  whatever  other  compound, 
Either  as  an  egg  or  wholly 
Formed  and  fashioned  as  a being, 
But  so  small  or  undeveloped 
That  the  magnifying  power 
Of  the  glass  had  failed  to  show  it. 
Or  so  perfectly  transparent 
As  to  shun  all  observation 
Till  the  chemicals  had  given 
Color  to  its  organism. 

All  attempts  at  such  “creation’ 


5 

io 

i5 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation . 


Through  the  means  of  laboratories, 

By  the  most  advanced  believers 
In  spontaneous  generation 
Have  been  hitherto  abortive, 

As  admitted  by  this  author,  5 

When  the  tests  have  been  conducted 
With  the  suitable  precautions; 

Yet  no  single  whit  discouraged 
He  now  feels  assured  that  chemists 
Will  achieve  the  final  triumph  10 

With  this  moneron  for  model — 

Without  organs  yet  organic — 

With  its  “single  combination” 

Of  pure  carbon  and  albumen, — 

So  near  inorganic  matter  15 

That  it  is  with  difficulty 

He  can  see  a slight  distinction, — 

Though  he  frankly  must  acknowledge 
That  it  is  an  organism, 

Even  if  it  has  no  organs,  20 

Or  of  course  it  would  not  help  him 
With  spontaneous  generation , — 

Yes,  he  feels  assured  that  chemists 
Will  completely  vindicate  him, 

By  triumphantly  surmounting  25 

All  the  former  difficulties 
Which  their  patient  predecessors’ 

Had  continuously  encountered, 

And  by  one  manipulation, 

Will,  without  a peradventure,  30 

When  the  process  is  perfected, 

Turn  a bushel  of  albumen 

Into  moneronic  monads 

And  all  kinds  of  small  bacteria 

Which  will  “come”  from  anorgana  35 

Crawling  into  life  and  being, 

Thrusting  out  their  “pseudopodia,” 
(Which,  of  course,  can  not  be  “organs,” 
Though  this  author  clearly  sees  them,) 
Picking  up  remaining  fragments  40 

Of  unutilized  albumen, 

Sucking  them  through  ducts  and  channels 
And  through  endosmotic  conduits, — 
Lastly,  by  a “pinching”  process 
Which  results  in  “self-division,”  45 


They  will  duplicate  their  numbers, 
And  thus  fill  two  bushel  baskets 
With  the  propagated  doublets 
Of  their  homogeneous  bodies, — 

All,  as  this  Professor  tells  us, 

By  a “process  of  nutrition,” 

Growth,  and  food-assimilation, 
Through  digestive  apparatus 
And  invisible  absorbents, — 

Which,  of  course,  have  no  existence, 
Since  beyond  the  reach  of  lenses' 

If  the  theory  of  Haeckel 
Be  admitted  “scientific,” 

As  he  so  distinctly  argues 
That  these  monera  were  fashioned 
Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

With  motility  and  senses 
And  all  necessary  functions 
For  their  growth  and  procreation, 
Which  implies  organic  structure 
Of  a complicated  nature 
Though  invisible  by  lenses, 

All  without  creative  power, 

Or  through  lifeless  laws  of  nature, 
There  would  really  seem  no  reason 
Why  the  midges,  ticks,  and  wood-lice, 
Weevils,  emmets,  flies,  and  beetles, 
Did  not  come  into  existence 
By  the  same  spontaneous  process, 

As  was  held  by  ancient  writers 
And  if  they  were  self-created 
By  spontaneous  generation, 

Why  not  still  extend  the  process 
To  all  tribes  of  annulata 
And  the  larger  groups  of  insects, 

And,  for  that,  to  birds  and  mammals, 
Since  we  could  not  dare  to  limit 
Or  to  circumscribe  a process 
So  mysterious  in  its  working, 

Which  confessedly  is  hidden 
From  all  human  comprehension, 

Any  more  than  dare  to  limit 
Darwin’s  infinite  “Creator” 

In  His  special  acts  of  power 


362 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


To  those  first  few  “simple  beings” 

As  a base  for  evolution. 

Now,  since  nothing,  as  says  Haeckel, 
Can  be  “possibly  imagined” 

Simpler  than  the  organism  5 

Of  the  moneron  in  nature, 

It  must  therefore  be  admitted 
That  the  bottom  facts  of  being 
Have  been  reached  in  these  small  creatures, 
And  the  very  nearest  structure  10 

To  the  dust  of  anorgana, 

Which  this  learned  author  tells  us 
Is  so  near  that  but  a shadow 
Of  distinction  can  be  noticed, 

But  which  Darwin  flatly  tells  him  15 

Is  a “ biassed ” view  of  being, 

And,  though  seeming  homogeneous, 

Are  of  “marvelous”  form  and  structure.* 

With  this  bottom  fact  of  structure 
And  “most  humble  organism,”  20 

Where  the  law  of  life  commences 
As  Professor  Haeckel  teaches, 

We  have  found  a demarkation 
Rising  to  the  very  heavens, 

And  beneath  a broad  hiatus  25 

Which  must  form  the  bridgeless  chasm 
Parting  life  from  anorgana, 

Which,  as  Darwin  has  expressed  it, 

Strikes  us  with  “enthusiasm;” 

For,  although  this  “humble”  creature  30 
Is  the  lowest  form  of  being, 

* ‘ ‘ The  most  humble  organism  is  something  much 
higher  than  the  inorganic  dust  under  our  feet;  and 
no  one  with  an  unbiassed  mind  can  study  any  thing 
creature,  however  humble,  without  being  struck  with 
enthusiasm  at  its  marvelous  structure  and  proper- 
ties."— Darwin,  Descent  of  Alan,  p.  165. 

[Professor  Haeckel’s  “enthusiasm” at  this  “most 
humble  organism  ” consists  in  the  fact,  not  that  it  is 
“something  much  higher  than  the  inorganic  dust 
under  our  feet,”  but  that  it  is  so  near  to  such  dust 
that  it  is  entirely  destitute  of  organs,  and  lienee  that 
it  could  easily  be  formed  by  spontaneous  generation 
out  of  inorganic  matter!  Darwin’s  talk  about  its 
“ marvelous  structure  and  properties"  is  all  moon- 
shine in  the  eyes  of  his  great  German  coadjutor. 
— A uthor.J 


Still,  it  is  a “marvelous  structure,” 

And,  however  low,  “much  higher” 

Than  mere  inorganic  matter. 

If  these  monera  continue  35 

Still  the  same  organic  beings 
As  when  first  originated 
By  spontaneous  generation 
Years  ago  by  countless  millions, 

As  Professor  Haeckel  tells  us,  40 

Since  they  still  remain  the  “simplest” 

Of  all  living  organisms, 

What  proof  can  we  find  in  reason, 

Or  philosophy  or  science, 

That  they  ever  changed  their  structure  45 
Into  heterogeneous  creatures 
By  a law  of  transmutation 
Under  natural  selection? 

Is  it  probable  that  beings 
Which  can  thus  remain  unaltered  50 
Since  before  the  Cambrian  epoch, — 
Generating,  multiplying, 

In  our  rivers,  seas,  and  oceans, 

Under  all  the  competition 
Of  the  struggle  for  existence,  55 

Never  having  changed  their  bodies 
From  those  lumps  of  pure  albumen 
Showing  not  a sign  of  structure 
In  one  specimen  now  living 
Which  might  tend  by  transmutation  60 
Toward  some  other  form  of  being, 

Did  just  once,  and  one  time  only, — 

In  one  place,  and  one  place  only. — 

By  spontaneous  variation 

Show  a singular  exception,  65 

And  produce  such  strange  divergence, 

As  by  natural  selection, 

Led  through  polyps  and  amoebae, 

Mollusks,  fishes,  and  amphibia, — [mals, 
Thence  through  reptiles,  birds,  and  mam- 
To  the  race  of  human  beings?  71 

If  that  moneron  thus  changing, 

Or  by  accident  diverging, 

First  to  start  the  transmutation 

Which  should  lead  by  graduations  75 

Toward  a higher  grade  of  being, 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


363 


Could  be  traced  through  self-divisions 
Backward  through  its  lineal  progress, 

We  would  reach  at  last  the  creature 
As  progenitor  primeval 
Which  was  ushered  into  being  5 

By  spontaneous  generation ! 

There,  just  prior  to  that  creature 
Coming  into  life  and  being, 

We  should  see  the  earth  a lifeless 
Vast  expanse  of  land  and  water.  10 

Eight  score  million  miles  of  surface 
All  lay  barren  and  unfruitful, 

With  that  marvelous  law  of  nature 
Ready  to  proceed  to  action, 

And  the  countless  million  species  15 
Which  have  since  come  into  being 
All  dependent  on  that  inch  square , 

Where  that  moneronic  monad 
Should  be  ushered  into  being 
Out  of  inorganic  matter!  20 

Here  we  are  informed  by  Haeckei 
That  had  but  a common  pebble 
Occupied  that  inch  of  surface 
Where  that  moneron  was  fashioned 
By  spontaneous  generation,  25 

And  which  was,  of  course,  the  destined 
Parent  of  all  living  beings, 

Man  'would  never  have  existed , 

Since  no  moneron  beside  it 

Has  led  on  to  such  an  issue,  30 

And  hence  no  one  could  have  done  so, 

Even  had  a thousand  million 

Monera  been  thus  created, — 

All  would  have  but  proved  abortive, 

Since  no  other  being  could  be — 35 

As  no  other  being  has  been — 

Made  the  parent  of  all  living.* 

Common  sense  and  common  science 
Must  repudiate  a doctrine 
As  improbable  in  reason,  40 

* ‘ 1 Every  animal  and  vegetable  species  has  arisen 
only  once  m the  course  of  time,  and  only  in  one  place 
on  the  earth — its  so-called  ‘centre  of  creation’ — by 
natural  selection.” — Haeckel,  History  of  Creation , 
vol.  i.,  p.  352. 


Which  would  predicate  man’s  being 
On  a thread  of  chance  so  brittle 
As  this  monstrous  law  inculcates; 

For  if  such  a thing  once  only 

Taking  place  in  but  one  being,  45 

As  that  special  variation 

Which  must  have  occurred  at  one  time 

Leading  to  the  human  species, 

As  this  law  of  transmutation 
So  emphatically  assures  us,  50 

Then  it  absolutely  follows, 

Had  that  moneron  been  absent 
Which  became  the  first  diverging 
Offshoot  from  that  primal  “parent,” 

In  that  dark  Laurentian  period,  55 

Or  had  waves  but  washed  a boulder 
Over  it  and  thus  destroyed  it 
Prior  to  that  change  of  structure 
By  spontaneous  variation, 

Or  some  circumstance  been  absent  60 

Which  combined  to  give  the  impulse 
To  that  special  deviation, 

Then  the  entire  race  of  fishes, 

Reptiles,  birds,  and  even  mammals, 

With  the  human  race  included,  65 

Would  have  never  been  created, 

Since  this  law  of  transmutation 
Or  of  natural  selection, 

As  we  are  assured  by  Darwin 

And  his  coadjutor  Haeckel,  70 

Is  the  only  means  in  nature 

For  the  origin  of  species, — 

Which  could  never  have  existed 
But  for  that  one  deviation 
In  our  prototype  primeval ! 75 

If  spontaneous  generation 
Was  the  primal  law  of  being, 

Or  the  only  means  in  nature 
For  the  origin  of  species, 

Then  why  not  such  organizing  80 

Process  be  in  operation 
Now  as  well  as  in  the  ages 
When  the  earth  not  half  developed 
Was  the  scene  of  such  a wondrous 
Change  to  life  from  anorgana? 


85 


364 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Reason  would  at  once  assure  us 
That  the  earth  as  now  developed 
Is  far  better  situated, 

With  facilities  far  greater 

For  inaugurating  species  5 

Singular  and  complicated, 

Even  those  unknown  to  science, 

By  spontaneous  generation 
Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

Or  from  vegetable  decoctions,  10 

Such  as  stagnant  swamps  and  marshes 
Furnish  for  the  operation, — 

If  that  was  the  primal  process, 

And  if  laws  exist  in  nature 

Competent  to  such  productions.  15 

It  is  infinitely  weaker 
Than  the  weakest  superstition 
Of  the  most  benighted  pagan 
To  suppose  such  laws  existed 
Capable  of  generating  20 

Beings  out  of  anorgana, 

And  that  only  once  in  nature  ■ 

Have  those  laws  been  brought  to  action 

Or  put  into  operation 

And  that  once  vast  ages  distant  25 

When  the  moneron  was  fashioned 

Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

If,  it  also  might  be  added, 

There  had  been  no  plan  nor  purpose 
Nor  intelligent  arrangement  30 

By  some  intellectual  being 
That  such  force  should  be  exerted 
There  and  at  that  one  time  only! 

That  the  earth  is  not  producing 
Now  and  constantly  such  beings  35 

By  an  organizing  process 
Which  had  proved  itself  effective 
In  producing  just  one  being 
As  the  parent  of  all  living, 

And  that,  too,  without  designer  40 

Or  primordial  plan  or  purpose, 

Throws  at  least  a strong  suspicion — 

Not  to  frame  too  broad  a sentence 
On  the  postulate  of  Haeckel — 

That  there  ever  was  such  process  45 


Or  such  law  as  he  now  teaches* 

For  if  it  had  once  existed 
And  gone  into  operation, 

Unless  some  annulling  power 

Over  and  above  all  nature  50 

Capable  of  abrogating 

Laws  and  principles  and  forces, 

By  which  life  received  commencement, 
Had  since  intervened  to  stop  it 
And  suspend  its  operation  55 

After  having  formed  one  being, 
Schoolboy-sense  should  teach  this  author 
That  the  same  spontaneous  process 
Would  be  now  at  work  creating 
Countless  myriads  of  beings  60 

Out  of  inorganic  matter, 

And  that  such  events  in  nature 
Would  be  everywhere  so  common 
That  we  would  no  more  remark  them 
Than  the  falling  of  a raindrop.  65 

But  as  we  have  every  reason 
To  believe  that  no  such  process 
Now  exists  or  has  existed 
Since  the  earliest  dawn  of  science, 

And  that  not  one  organism — 70 

Moneron  or  any  other — 

Has  come  into  life  and  being 
Without  parentage  to  cause  it, 

Or  unsexual  self-division 

(As  among  some  lower  species),  75 

Is  it  too  unmild  on  Haeckel 

To  express  the  firm  conviction 

That  a more  absurd  assumption 

Or  egregious  piece  of  nonsense 

Than  spontaneous  generation  80 

Never  has  been  thought  or  dreamt  of 

Since  the  days  of  Aristotle? 

Thus  we  have  a fair  exhibit 
Of  that  highest  grade  of  science 
Represented  in  this  notion  85 

Of  spontaneous  generation 
Out  of  inorganic  matter, — 

Which,  to  overthrow  creation 

As  a human  superstition 

And  a puerile  contemplation  90 


Chav.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


365 


Of  the  simple  plan  of  nature, 

Makes  man’s  tenure  of  existence 

Hinge  upon  the  merest  atom 

Of  albumen  being  present 

In.  one  place  and  at  one  instant  5 

Years  ago  by  untold  millions, 

And  that  if  we  dare  to  question 
Facts  so  marvelously  consistent  (!) 

And  harmonious  with  reason, 

This  great  scientific  author  10 

Would  with  one  broad  sentence  brand  us 
As  not  only  superstitious 
But  as  ignorant  of  science, 

Lacking  philosophic  “culture.”  * 

Had  there  been  design  and  wisdom  15 
In  spontaneous  generation, 

Or  intelligent  arrangement 

For  that  first  organic  process 

Which  produced  a single  creature 

Out  of  inorganic  matter  20 

To  evolve  by  transmutation 

Into  higher  organisms, 

Some  place  would  have  been  selected 

By  that  supervising  power 

Where  no  boulder  could  have  thwarted  25 

Plans  so  wondrous  and  far-reaching 

By  an  accidental  crushing 

Of  our  prototype  and  parent, 

That  the  tenure  of  man’s  being 
Through  those  myriad  transmutations  30 
Might  be  absolutely  certain ; 

And  no  chance  could  have  prevented 
Ultimately  man’s  existence, 

Were  this  scheme  of  evolution 

From  a moneron  or  monad  35 


*“What  is  even  more  detrimental  to  the  general 
understanding  of  nature  as  a whole  than  this  one- 
sided tendency,  is  the  want  of  a philosophical  cul- 
ture, and  this  applies  to  most  of  the  naturalists  of 
the  present  day.  . . . It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  the  deep  inner  truth  of  the  theory  of  descent 
remains  a sealed  book  to  those  rude  empiricists.  . . 
Even  in  our  own  day  most  paleontologists  examine 
and  describe  fossils  without  knowing  the  most  im- 
portant facts  of  embryology.” — HAECKEL , history 
of  Creation,  vol.  ii. , pp.  247,  249,  250. 


God’s  great  plan  of  organizing 
And  developing  creation, 

As  some  clergymen  now  tell  us, — 

Who,  bewildered  and  confounded 
By  the  facts  revealed  by  Darwin,  40 

Take  the  ground  that  transmutation 
Might  have  been  God’s  plan  in  nature 
For  man’s  ultimate  creation. 

Had  there  been  pre-ordination 
For  a scheme  of  evolution  45 

When  that  moneron  was  fashioned 
As  primeval  type  or  parent 
Of  all  other  organisms, 

Then  had  one  place  proved  a failure 
For  such  vitalizing  process,  50 

Or  one  being  not  developed 
By  spontaneous  variation 
As  the  plan  had  contemplated, 

Other  times  and  other  places 

And  continued  repetitions  55 

Of  the  organizing  process 

Might  have  followed  in  succession, 

Till  God’s  scheme,  inaugurated 
In  a varying  organism, 

Had  a prospect  of  succeeding,  60 

That  by  no  contingent  chances 
Man’s  existence  might  be  thwarted. 

But  Professor  Haeckel  tells  us 
That  there  was  no  plan  nor  wisdom — 

No  design  and  no  designer — 65 

No  intelligent  director — 

To  arrange  or  guide  the  process, 

Or  provide  against  the  chances 

Of  ten  thousand  million  failures 

From  that  moneron’s  creation  70 

By  some  prank  or  freak  of  nature 

Through  the  myriad  variations 

And  varieties  of  structure 

Upward  through  all  grades  of  being, 

On  each  one  of  which  depended  75 

To  its  very  smallest  detail, 

Man’s  perfected  organism 
And  his  intellectual  powers!* 

*“We  can  therefore,  from  these  general  outlines 
of  the  inorganic  history  of  the  earth’s  crust,  deduce 


366 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Really  it  would  seem  a doctrine 
Aiming  to  explain  the  problem 
Of  man’s  origin  in  nature, 

Based  on  such  precarious  data 

As  a purposeless  selection  5 

And  designless  law  of  structure 

With  contingency  so  startling 

As  a mindless,  will-less  process, 

And  foundation  so  uncertain 

As  a chance  spontaneous  impulse  10 

And  a favorable  divergence, 

Leaving  man  to  hang  on  nothing 
But  these  flimsy  hairs  of  chances 
Through  ten  thousand  million  species 
And  spontaneous  variations  15 

Each  of  which  depended  solely 
On  some  circumstance  the  slightest 
Or  mere  thread  of  luck  or  fortune 
Which  if  severed  would  forever 
Have  destroyed  man’s  chance  of  being,  20 
Hardly  could  command  the  notice 
Of  savants  and  learned  writers 
Even  for  a single  moment. 

Darwin’s  theory,  however, 

Is  not  met  with  such  objection  25 

As  the  one  here  forced  on  Haeckel, 

Since  he  claims  the  first  few  beings, 

Even  though  they  were  the  simplest, 

From  which  all  the  higher  species 
Have  been  gradually  developed,  30 

Were  at  first  inaugurated 
As  the  work  of  special  power 
And  miraculous  creation, — 

That  a wise  design  and  purpose 
Planned  and  organized  those  creatures,  35 

the  important  fact,  that  at  a certain  definite  time  life 
had  its  beginning  on  earth,  ancl  that  terrestrial  or- 
ganisms did  not  exist  from  eternity, but  at  a certain 
period  came  into  existence  for  the  first  time." 

“All  the  different  forms  of  organisms,  which 
people  are  usually  inclined  to  look  upon  as  the 
products  of  creative  power, acting  for  a definite  pur- 
pose, we,  according  to  the  theory  of  selection,  can 
conceive  as  the  necessary  productions  of  natural 
selection,  working  without  a purpose.” — Haeckel, 
History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  pp.  176,  327. 


Breathing  into  them  the  impulse, 

Which,  by  laws  of  growth  and  structure 
And  of  natural  selection, 

Finally  might  reach  the  climax 
Of  man’s  wondrous  organism,  40 

Or  by  chance  might  prove  a failure, 

Since  all  future  evolution 
Was  then  left  to  nature’s  forces 
Under  natural  selection. 

But  if  those  organic  beings  45 

Thus  miraculously  created 
By  that  overruling  Power 
As  a start  for  evolution 
Had  resulted  in  a failure, 

Other  forms  could  have  been  fashioned  50 
By  the  same  creative  Power, 

And  so  on  till  some  amoeba 

Or  some  larva  of  a mollusk 

Had  commenced  those  variations 

And  divergences  of  structure  55 

Which  in  time  might  be  developed 

Into  human  form  and  outline. 

And  here  Darwin’s  plan  surpasses 
Haeckel’s  wretched,  helpless  system, 
Which,  if  at  the  start  a failure,  60 

Never  could  have  been  repeated, 

As  no  mind  was  in  the  process. 

Still,  when  carefully  considered, 
Darwin’s  plan  of  evolution, 

Taken  all  in  all,  is  really  65 

Worse,  if  anything,  than  Haeckel’s, 

Which  would  have  the  lawrs  of  nature — 
Mindless,  purposeless,  and  senseless, — 
Make  just  one  spontaneous  effort 
And  then  cease  their  operation,  70 

Powerless  for  repetition ; 

While  the  system  taught  by  Darwin 
Makes  an  infinite  “ Creator,” 

Omnipresent  and  omniscient, 

Breathe  ” into  one  organism,  75 

Or,  for  that,  a half  a dozen, 

And  then  never  “breathe”  thereafter; 

But  when  thus  a few  small  creatures 
Had  been  formed  for  evolution 
To  manipulate  and  manage  80 


Chap.  VII.  SpOUtailCOltS 

Under  natural  selection, 

God  retires  absolutely 

From  the  work  of  organizing 

Any  other  grades  of  being 

Leading  toward  the  human  species,  5 

Leaving  everything  hap-hazard, 

Just  as  things  might  chance  to  happen, 
Without  care  or  even  knowledge, 

Or  the  least  participation 

In  the  accidents  and  chances,  10 

Which,  without  His  supervision, 

Were  as  liable  to  happen 

And  destroy  man’s  chance  of  being 

After  that  one  act  of  power 

Or  that  start  of  evolution,  15 

As  in  Haeckel’s  plan  precisely, 

As  the  two  plans  only  differ 
In  their  manner  of  commencement. 

Such  a scheme  insults  the  reason, 

And  upsets  all  rules  of  fitness,  20 

That  an  infinite  “Creator” 

Having  intellect  should  fashion 
Complicated  living  creatures, 

Either  without  any  purpose 

Or  design  in  such  creation ; 25 

Or,  as  we  are  forced  to  view  it, 

With  a special  object  present, 

And  a definite  intention, 

And  then  leave  the  work  unfinished, 
Trusting  everything  to  chances,  30 

Taking  not  the  slightest  interest 
In  the  final  termination 
Of  His  plan  as  contemplated 
At  the  outset  of  the  project ! 

Darwin’s  ideas  of  creation,  35 

Therefore,  viewed  in  any  aspect, 

Are  untenable  and  shallow, 

For  he  has  distinctly  taught  us 
That  the  supervising  presence 
Of  this  infinite  “Creator,”  40 

After  He  had  made  the  first  forms, 

Is  a fanciful  assumption, 

Without  scientific  basis, 

Claiming  that  one  act  of  power. 

In  that  primitive  formation,  45 


Generation.  367 

Was  His  only  interference 
With  the  simple  laws  of  nature, 

And  that  everything  thereafter 
Had  been  left  to  evolution 
Through  spontaneous  variations  50 

Under  natural  selection! 

But  if  God  did  really  fashion 
Those  primordial  simple  beings 
By  miraculous  creation, 

As  the  start  of  evolution,  55 

He  assuredly  designed  them 

As  progenitors  of  others 

Which  He  must  have  known  would  follow 

And  evolve  to  higher  structures 

By  survival  of  the  fittest.  60 

And  if  He  did  thus  design  them 

And  foresee  their  transmutation, 

Or  one  single  change  of  structure 
Toward  a higher  form  of  being, 

He  must  have  foreseen  all  changes  65 
Possible  or  potent  in  them, 

And  all  future  transmutations 
To  their  final  crowning  climax 
In  the  human  organism. 

Hence, within  those  simple  structures, 70 
Formed  by  miracle  or  fiat, 

God  must  have  foreseen  each  species 
Which  could  possibly  develop 
In  the  annals  of  the  future. 

If  He  really  had  the  wisdom  75 

And  omniscient  understanding 
Necessary  to  create  them 
Out  of  inorganic  matter; 

And  if  He  thus  saw  each  species 
Which  would  come  from  this  beginning, 80 
He  ordained  the  laws  and  forces 
And  the  smallest  variations 
By  which  each  diverging  structure 
Could  and  should  become  transmuted, 
And  thus  form  another  species;  85 

And  if  this  be  true  in  reason, 

Or  a logical  deduction, 

Then  inevitably  it  follows 

That  God  just  as  much  created 

All  the  other  tribes  and  species  90 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


368 

Which  have  come  by  transmutation 
From  those  few  primeval  structures 
As  He  organized  the  first  ones, 

Since  if  He  had  not  so  made  them, 
With  potential  laws  and  forces 
Which  He  saw  would  thus  accomplish 
What  He  had  Himself  appointed, 
They  could  not  have  lived  a second 
After  having  been  created, 

Much  less  have  evolved  to  structures 
Higher  in  the  scale  of  being. 

If  God  did  create  those  first  forms 
By  a miracle  of  power, 

It  is  not  supposed  to  follow, 

As  these  sapient  writers  tell  us, 

That  no  law  was  in  the  process. 

If  God  speaks  a stone  to  being, 
Making  it  a living  creature, 

Lain  accompanies  that  fiat 
Necessarily  and  truly, 

Since  His  very  act  of  speaking 
Is  one  law  of  operation. 

Then,  if  by  such  lawful  fiat 
He  produced  the  living  function 
In  one  animate  formation, 

Life  could  only  be  continued 
By  the  constant  operation 
Of  the  vital  laws  and  forces 
By  which  they  were  first  created 

Hence,  insensibly  it  leads  us 
To  the  rational  assumption 
That  each  voluntary  motion 
Or  unconscious  inhalation 
Of  a being  thus  created 
Is  God’s  act  as  much  and  truly 
As  the  primal  act  which  formed  it 
Out  of  inorganic  matter; 

And  therefore  all  variations 
And  all  future  transmutations 
Through  those  primal  laws  implanted, 
Are  God’s  acts  and  His  creations 
In  a sense  as  absolutely 
As  the  miracle  at  starting. 

Thus,  by  positive  deduction, 

We  have  reached  the  broad  conclusion 


That  it  is  as  much  creation, 

If  we  understood  its  working, 

And  miraculous  as  truly 

To  produce  by  transmutation 

Under  natural  selection 

As  by  Darwin’s  “breathing”  process 

Which  produced  the  primal  creatures; 

And  hence  Darwin’s  great  objection 

To  the  various  tribes  and  species 

Being  separately  constructed 

Or  by  miracle  created 

Smothers  by  the  very  logic 

Which  his  theory  has  furnished, 

Since  three  fiats  are  no  greater, 

And  no  more  God’s  special  edicts 
In  producing  three  gradations, 

Or  three  genera  or  species, 

Than  would  be  one  single  fiat 
Having  three  reverberations 
Or  rebounds  to  form  such  species 
By  transmuting  them  from  others, 

As  His  laws  may  well  illustrate 
By  continued  operation, 

As  must  be  the  case  if  Darwin’s 
System  be  the  true  solution. 

But,  if  it  be  true,  as  Darwin’s 
Theory  would  seem  to  teach  us, 

In  defiance  of  all  logic 
And  all  principles  of  reason, 

That  those  first  forms  were  created 

With  inherent  laws  and  forces 

Capable  of  going  onward 

Toward  the  human  form  and  structure, 

Or  perchance  of  retrograding 

Or  of  making  no  advancement, 

As  the  monera  assure  us, 

Yet  without  the  least  connection 
Or  relationship  whatever 
To  a definite  intention 
Or  design  at  time  of  starting, 

Leaving  them  to  chance  incentives, 
Cutting  loose  and  running  blindly 
Through  spontaneous  variations 
Formed  by  multifold  conditions 
Under  natural  selection, 


5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


369 


Then  it  logically  must  follow 
That  God  also  made  them  blindly 
And  without  the  slightest  foresight 
As  to  destiny  or  progress, 

And  though  forming  them  with  structures 
And  capacities  so  wondrous, 

Knowing  nothing  of  their  future, 

He  must  ever  since  have  viewed  them 
And  their  millions  upon  millions 
Of  organic  transmutations 
With  astonishment  unbounded 
And  with  infinite  amusement, 

As  His  memory  reverted 

To  that  pre-Laurentian  period 

When  perhaps  a freak  of  pastime 

Prompted  Him  to  make  a mollusk, — 

Which,  to  His  profound  amazement, 

Has  by  chance  been  so  productive 

As  to  supersede  creation 

And  supplant  the  God  of  Nature, — 

Even  going  on  evolving 

Into  countless  forms,  and  structures 

Till  a being  is  developed 

Capable  of  recognizing 

And  of  worshiping  that  Maker 

Who  had  been  so  condescending 

As  to  form  a primal  mollusk 

From  which  man  might  be  developed! 

But,  as  I have  been  insisting, 

If  God  did  foresee  the  future 
At  the  time  of  such  creation 
And  the  grand  results  to  follow 
That  one  touch  of  organism 
As  He  “breathed”  His  living  essence 
Into  inorganic  matter, 

There  is  no  escape  for  Darwin, 

That  in  forming  such  a creature, 

With  full  knowledge  of  its  powers 
And  the  myriad  variations 
Of  its  lineal  descendants, 

God  designed  with  settled  purpose 
Every  living  link  of  structure 
Which  would  be  developed  from  it, 
With  each  grade  and  shade  of  instinct 
And  all  faculties  and  powers 


From  the  moneron  to  monkey 
And  from  apes  to  human  beings, 

Just  as  if  each  living  creature 

Had  been  specially  created 

By  direct  Almighty  fiat.  50 

Here,  then,  Darwin  for  the  present 
May  be  left  with  evolution 
Stultifying  all  his  logic 
As  to  special  acts  of  power, 

While  we  turn  to  Haeckel’s  doctrine  55 
Of  spontaneous  generation 
Forming  life  and  mental  powers 
Absolutely  out  of  nothing, — 

Making  not  alone  the  chances 
Of  development  a problem  60 

Through  unnumbered  transmutations, 

But  the  very  start  involving 

In  the  merest  chance  commingling 

Of  such  inorganic  atoms 

As  would  form  a living  creature.  65 

While  the  origin  of  instinct, 

Or  how  life  originated 
In  such  first  organic  beings, 

Would  to  most  men  be  a problem 
Infinitely  overwhelming,  70 

Without  prior  life  or  being 
In  the  universe  of  Nature, 

And  no  intellectual  power 
To  have  organized  such  creature, 

It  is  brushed  aside  as  “ nothing ” 75 

By  this  penetrating  author 
But  molecular  attraction, 

Or  material  atoms  making 
“Orderly,”  “inherent  motions,” 

Which  are  only  simple  “changes”  80 

Of  the  “molecules”  of  matter 
Placed  in  such  a “varied  manner” 

As  to  cause  peculiar  “mingling” 

Of  “albuminous”  ingredients!* 

* “The  life  of  every  organic  individual  is  nothing 
but  a connected  chain  of  very  complicated  material 
phenomena  of  motion.  These  motions  must  be  con- 
sidered as  changes  in  the  position  and  combination 
of  the  molecules ; that  is,  of  the  smallest  particles 
of  animated  matter,  of  atoms  placed  together  in  the 
most  varied  manner.  The  specific,  definite  ten- 


1 5 

10 

i5 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


370 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


It  is  perfectly  in  keeping 
With  spontaneous  generation 
Out  of  inorganic  mortar, 

That  this  muddy  explanation 

Should  so  graphically  illustrate  5 

What  life  really  does  consist  of, 

As  a proof  at  once  conclusive 

That  spontaneous  generation 

Could  have  formed  a living  creature ; 

While  the  more  considerate  Darwin  10 

Rather  than  to  so  belittle 

Life  as  does  this  learned  author, 

Frankly,  hopelessly  surrenders 
Origin  of  mental  powers — 

Life  itself  as  well  as  instinct — 15 

As  beyond  all  explanation, 

Or,  if  ever  explicated, 

“Problems  for  the  distant  future.”* * 

If  life  actually  is  “nothing” 

But  the  molecules  in  motion  20 

Which  compose  organic  structure, 

As  this  author  tries  to  tell  us 
In  his  meaningless  farrago 
Of  an  “orderly”  inherent 
“ Chain  ” of  “ complicated  ” “ motions  ” 25 
Acting  in  a “varied  manner,” 

Haeckel  ought  to  start  such  “ motion  ” 
Even  in  a “varied  manner  ” 

In  a piece  of  pure  albumen, 

And,  as  heretofore  suggested,  30 

Make  a moneron  as  easily 
As  could  senseless  laws  of  Nature 
With  no  intellect  to  aid  them. 

But  truth  is,  and  Haeckel  knows  it — 

Or  at  least  he  ought  to  know  it — 35 

That  the  life  and  mental  powers 

dency  of  these  orderly,  continuous,  and  inherent 
motions  of  life  depends,  in  every  organism,  upon 
the  chemical  mingling  of  the  albuminous  generative 
matter  to  which  it  owes  its  origin." — IIaeckei., 
History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  p.  199. 

* “ In  what  manner  the  mental  powers  were  first 
developed  in  the  lowest  organisms  is  as  hopeless  an 
inquiry  as  how  life  itself  first  originated.  These 
are  problems  for  the  distant  future,  if  they  are  ever 
to  be  solved  by  man." — Darwin,  Descent  of  Man, 
p.  66. 


Common  to  all  living  beings 

Can  not  come  exc.ept  from  powers 

Similar  and  pre-existent 

Somewhere  in  the  realms  of  Nature.  40 

This  truth  stands  a living  axiom, 

Which  the  atheistic  onslaughts 
Of  the  world  can  never  jostle. 

Hence,  what  vain  attempts  in  writers 
Trying  to  evade  creation  45 

And  a supervising  power 
Under  cover  of  assumptions 
Like  spontaneous  generation 
Or  a “coming”  into  being 
With  no  prior  life  in  Nature  50 

From  which  living  force  could  issue. 

Something  never  came  from  nothing 
Is  an  axiom  so  well  settled 
In  the  very  roots  of  science 
That  to  even  seek  evasion  55 

Under  what  pretense  soever 
Shows  a mind  devoid  of  balance. 
Organized  or  living  bodies 
Can  not,  in  the  very  nature 
Of  the  idea  of  such  process,  60 

Come  from  inorganic  matter 
Without  some  creative  power 
Having  mental  pre-arrangement 
And  the  vital  force  to  start  them 
After  they  are  planned  and  fashioned;  65 
Call  that  vital  power  carbon, 

Electricity,  caloric, 

Laws  of  interacting  forces, 

Or  molecular  attraction, — 

Call  it  anything  or  nothing,  70 

I care  not  what  name  you  give  it, 

If  it  can  design  a creature 
With  organic,  living  functions, 

And  then  give  the  vital  impulse 
By  which  voluntary  motion,  75 

Sense,  and  instinct,  are  continued, 

It  is  God — the  true  and  real, 

Primal,  ultimate  causation, — 

From  Whom  all  things  have  proceeded. 

Nothing  comes  without  causation  80 

Nor  exists  without  creator 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


37i 


Unless  really  self-existent 
And  eternal  in  its  nature. 

May  I not  assume  this  settled 
As  a scientific  truism 

Which  the  reader  will  not  question?  5 
Then,  if  this  be  so  it  follows — 

Matter  dead  or  inorganic 
Changing  to  a living  structure, 

If  the  simplest  organism, 

Only  passes  that  hiatus  10 

By  the  living  intervention 
Of  intelligent  creation  ; 

And  since  all  these  writers  tell  us 
That  organic  life  at  one  time 
On  this  earth  had  no  exi  tence,  15 

It  had  once  a first  commencement 
And  must  hence  have  come  from  nothing, 
Which  defies  our  sense  and  reason, 

Or  there  must  have  been  creation 
By  a power  over  Nature.  20 

All  this  want  of  common  logic 
In  such  naturalists  as  Haeckel, 

Who  assume  that  life  could  really 

Come  from  inorganic  matter 

Without  prior  life  to  cause  it,  25 

Has  its  basis  fixed  in  error 

Coming  from  the  supposition 

That  the  life  and  mind  are  nothing 

But  a chain  of  varied  motions 

Of  the  molecules  or  atoms  30 

Which  compose  an  organism  ; 

And  that  such  a varied  motion 

Might  by  accident  so  happen 

Through  molecular  attraction 

And  the  law  of  gravitation  35 

As  to  give  the  vital  impulse, 

Starting  life  and  mental  powers 
With  developmental  forces 
Capable  of  organizing 
Higher  grades  of  varied  motions!  40 

Hence,  the  object  and  the  meaning 
Of  the  arguments  presented 
In  the  three  preceding  chapters, 

Proving  many  things  substantial 

Held  to  be  but  modes  of  motion,  45 


Such  as  sound  and  magnetism, 

Heat  and  light  and  gravitation, 

As  a scientific  reason 
Based  on  entities  around  us, 

Which  materialists  can’t  question,  50 

That  the  life  and  mind  are  substance 
Real  as  are  blood  and  muscle; 

And  that  all  this  talk  of  motions 
Of  the  molecules  of  bodies 
Acting  in  a “varied  manner”  55 

Being  all  there  is  about  us 
Known  as  life  or  mental  powers 
Is  the  most  insipid  nonsense 
And  unworthy  of  the  reason 
Of  a Hottentot  or  Kaffir.  60 

To  assume  there  is  no  wisdom 
Nor  design  through  pre-arrangement 
Shown  in  complex  organisms, 

Such  as  those  of  birds  and  mammals, 

And  that  they  have  been  constructed  65 
By  a purposeless  selection , 

As  do  scientists  like  Darwin, 

Haeckel,  and  that  class  of  writers, 

Is  ascribing  Godlike  powers 
To  the  accidental  mingling  70 

Of  unconscious  laws  and  forces 
Which  had  no  originator. 

Yet  there  is  no  chance  in  Nature, 

If  laws  be,  as  I assume  them, 

But  intelligent  enactments  75 

Issued  as  the  primal  edicts 
Of  an  all-pervading  wisdom. 

Hence,  they  can  not  cause  a motion 
Save  through  processes  directed 
By  intelligent  causation.  80 

Therefore  no  such  word  as  happen , 
Scientifically  speaking, 

And  no  such  a form  of  language 
As  by  accident  occurring, 

Has  a place  in  Nature’s  parlance, — 85 

Though,  in  common  conversation, 

By  unscientific  license, 

We  may  say  a thing  has  happe7ied, 

Or  takes  place  by  chance  occurrence, 

When  the  cause  is  not  apparent.  90 


372 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Every  act,  however  trifling, 

In  the  complex  realms  of  motion 
Is  as  certainly  determined 
By  inflexible  enactment, 

And  by  laws  as  fixed  and  settled  5 

As  the  principles  of  science 

Which  control  a planet’s  movements. 

Not  a down  or  thistle-pappus, 

Whirled  and  drifted  by  the  cyclone, 

But  at  last  will  end  its  journey  10 

In  a definite  location 
By  unalterable  edict, 

Which  would  be  again  repeated — 

And  a thousand  times  repeated — 

With  infallible  precision,  15 

Falling  in  the  same  position 
Without  one  hair’s  variation, 

Should  the  same  wind  act  tipon  it 

And  the  same  force  be  exerted 

Under  similar  conditions.  20 

Thus,  through  laws  ordained  by  Heaven, 

Not  a single  sparrow  falleth 

Without  His  all-searching  notice, 

Whilst  our  very  hairs  are  numbered' 

Is  it  logical,  assuming — 25 

As  so  clearly  done  by  Haeckel — 

That  because  a law  of  Nature 
Is  the  proximate  causation 
Of  some  complicated  process 
Or  phenomenon  resulting,  30 

Such  as  crystalline  formation, 

There  need  be  no  predisposing 
Or  primordial  legislation 
To  establish  such  an  edict 
And  enforce  its  execution?  35 

All  effects  depend  on  causes, 

Each  a statute  law  of  Nature, 

Which  in  turn  are  secondary, 

And  but  links  connecting  causes 

More  remote  but  correlated  40 

In  one  grand  concatenation 

Back  to  God  the  primal  fountain 

Or  the  ultimate  causation 

Of  all  proximate  conditions. 

Thus  the  thistle-down  was  anchored,  45 


After  whirling  through  the  heavens, 
Drifted  by  aerial  currents 
Till  entangled  in  the  meshes 
Of  some  weed  or  grassy  fiber. 

But  the  wind  which  drove  the  pappus  50 
Had  its  cause  in  free  caloric 
Rarefying  air  in  strata. 

Heat,  though  primarily  resulting 
From  the  solar  radiation, 

May  be  modified  by  vapor  55 

And  controlled  by  clouds  and  rain-storms. 
Rain  again  is  caused  by  action 
Of  this  heat  upon  the  surface 
Of  some  river,  lake,  or  ocean, 

Turning  water  into  vapor.  60 

But  again  the  thistle-pappus 

Might  have  still  continued  drifting 

Till  reduced  to  dust  by  action 

Of  the  atmosphere’s  attrition 

But  for  spires  of  grass  which  caught  it  65 

And  prevented  further  motion  ; 

And  the  grass  was  caused  by  moisture, 
Which  in  turn  had  come  from  rain-clouds, 
Which  were  caused  by  heat  on  water, 
While  the  heat  was  caused  by  sun-rays;  70 
And  thus  causes  intermingle, 

Ramifying  through  each  other, 

Interlaced  and  correlated, 

While  the  sum  of  all  conditions, 

Proximate  or  secondary,  75 

Is  embodied  in  the  idea 
Of  an  ultimate  causation 
Just  as  much  surpassing  Nature 
And  her  complicated  forces 
As  the  sun  outweighs  the  pappus.  80 

Talking,  then,  of  chance  creating 
Or  of  accident  producing 
Living,  sentient  organisms, 

Is  as  plausible  as  thinking 

Of  a systematic  chaos  85 

Or  an  orderly  confusion, 

Since  without  a mind  directing 
Laws  in  Nature’s  operations 
System  would  be  wholly  absent, 

And  thus  incoherent  motion  90 


Ciiap.  VII.  SpOntailCOUS 

Would  usurp  the  place  of  order, — 

Then,  what  should  occur  in  Nature 
Would  be  wholly  accidental. 

But,  however  men  may  quibble, 

And  ignore  the  truths  here  stated,  5 

Chance  can  no  more  form  the  cilia 
Of  the  rotifer,  for  instance, 

Or  the  “shapeless”  pseudopodia 
Of  the  moneron  of  Haeckel, 

By  spontaneous  generation  io 

Through  the  accidental  mingling 
Of  the  molecules  of  matter, 

Than  the  hurricane’s  gyrations 
Could  transform  the  dust  to  letters, 

And  by  accidental  drifting  15 

Of  the  sand  along  the  desert 
Place  each  grain  in  such  position 
As  to  print  the  Ten  Commandments 
Word  for  word  as  now  recorded. 

Hence,  though  mysteries  encountered  20 
In  the  moneron  are  deeper 
Than  the  intellect  can  fathom, 

Yet,  as  far  as  mind  can  trace  them, 

Do  their  wisdom  in  creation 

And  design  shine  forth  resplendent,  25 

Which  defy  all  human  effort 

To  conceive  of  but  as  product 

Of  true  mind  like  ours  in  essence 

And  like  ours  in  operation, 

Though  of  infinite  expansion  30 

And  capacity  unbounded. 

That  the  moneron  was  fashioned 
Through  a force  or  law  of  Nature 
No  more  obviates  creation 
Through  intelligent  conception  35 

And  ingenious  execution 
Than  because  a watch  was  fashioned 
By  the  means  of  lathes  and  gravers, 

Drills  and  files  of  various  pattern, 

Intellect  or  preconception  40 

Had  no  part  in  such  construction, 

And  therefore  no  mechanician 
Planned  the  complicated  timepiece 
Or  applied  the  force  to  make  it. 

Hence,  in  vain  will  Pantheism  45 


Generation . 373 

Seek  to  bury  plan  and  wisdom 
And  a personal  conception 
Of  specific  forms  in  Nature 
Under  drifts  of  lifeless  matter; 

For,  however  deeply  buried,  50 

And  whatever  laws  and  forces 
May  be  traced  before  we  reach  it, 

Still,  beneath  there  lives  the  Essence 
As  the  all-pervading  Fountain 
From  Whom  are  dispensed  the  forces,  55 
Laws,  and  principles,  and  motions, 

Which  give  potency  to  matter. 

It  must  therefore  stand  forever 
As  an  axiomatic  thesis 
Which  the  mind  at  once  endorses  60 

That  no  animated  structure 
Can,  by  possible  conception 
Of  an  intellect  well  balanced, 

Be  produced  by  means  whatever, 

When  the  parts  suit  ends  and  uses,  65 
And  results  are  gained  by  motion 
Of  such  parts  in  combination, 

Without  previous  plan  or  purpose 
And  intelligent  conception. 

I defy  the  mind  of  mortal — 70 

And  here  naturalists  are  challenged — 

To  conceive  an  organism 
Of  the  simplest  form  in  Nature, 

Where  the  living  adaptation 
Of  its  parts  and  vital  functions  75 

Act  subservient  to  the  objects 
And  the  uses  of  its  being, 

Without  wisdom , plan , and  forethought 
Having  had  a prior  action 
In  such  structural  adjustment  80 

And  such  harmony  of  motions , 

Any  more  than  clocks  and  watches 
Can  be  possibly  conceived  of 
Without  prior  plan  and  planner 
And  intelligent  constructer.  85 

Is  not  this  a law  in  science, 

When  disrobed  of  all  the  trappings 
Which  the  sophist  weaves  around  it, 
Acually  uncontroverted 
As  a universal  truism?  90 


374 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


Here,  then,  is  a proof  conclusive, 

Or  the  called-for  “ demonstration]' 

That  no  such  a thing  in  Nature 

As  spontaneous  generation 

Of  a living  organism,  5 

Having  all  the  vital  functions 

Necessary  to  subsistence 

Or  to  growth  and  reproduction, 

Could  by  peradventure  happen 
Through  the  accidental  mingling  10 

Of  mere  inorganic  atoms, 

And  therefore  must  stand  forever 
In  the  broadest  sense  of  language 
As  a final  refutation 

Of  autogenous  productions  15 

Out  of  inorganic  matter. 

Yet,  in  face  of  proof  thus  final 
And  unanswerably  established 
That  spontaneous  generation 
Is  impossible  in  Nature,  20 

This  great  naturalist  assures  us 
That  it  can  not  be  refuted, 

Or  that  no  man  can  disprove  it, 

Since  we  do  not  know  the  nature 
Of  the  chemical  “conditions”  25 

In  the  Carboniferous  period 
Or  the  ages  just  preceding, — 

At  which  time,  as  he  supposes, 

Monera  were  generated, 

Through  the  great  excess  of  carbon,  30 
Out  of  inorganic  matter.* 

* “The  impossibility  of  such  a process  can,  in 
fact,  never  be  proved.  For  how  can  we  know  that 
in  remote  primeval  times  there  did  not  exist  con- 
ditions quite  different  from  those  at  present  obtain- 
ing, and  which  may  have  rendered  spontaneous  gen- 
eration possible?”  . . . “Think  only  of  the  fact  that 
the  enormous  masses  of  carbon  which  we  now  find 
deposited  in  the  primary  coal  mountains,”  &c.  . . . 
“At  that  time,  under  conditions  quite  different 
from  those  of  to-day,  a spontaneous  generation, 
which  now  is  perhaps  no  longer  possible,  may  have 
taken  place.”  . . . “ Indeed  we  can  even  positively 
and  with  full  assurance  maintain  that  the  general 
conditions  of  life  in  primeval  times  must  have  been 
entirely  different  from  those  of  the  present  time.” — 
Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  pp.  341,  342- 


Note. — This  eminent  scientific  author 
and  Professor  in  the  University  of  Jena, 
who  censures  “most  of  the  naturalists  of 
the  present  day”  for  “the  want  of  philo- 
sophical culture ,”  seriously  tells  the  reader 
that  spontaneous  generation  should  be  ac- 
cepted as  a scientific  hypothesis  and  as  a 
basis  for  Evolution,  since  “The  impossi- 
bility  of  such  a process  can,  in  fact,  never 
be  proved”!  He  even  gives  his  reasons 
why  its  impossibility  can  not  be  proved  in 
the  fact  that  “the  general  conditions  of  life 
in  primeval  times  must  have  been  entirely 
different  from  those  of  the  present  time,” 
and  that  owing  to  “the  enormous  masses 
of  carbon,”  then  uncondensed  into  coal, 
“a  spontaneous  generation  which  now  is 
perhaps  no  longer  possible  may  have  taken 
place”!  This  may  be  a fair  sample  of  the 
“philosophical  culture”  at  the  University 
of  Jena,  but  it  assuredly  does  not  pass 
current  among  scientific  thinkers  here. 

Let  us  examine  this  philosophical  carbon 
dodge  which  has  played  so  important  a 
part  all  the  way  through  this  discussion  of 
the  moneron.  Professor  Haeckel  thinks 
that  the  amount  of  uncondensed  carbon 
floating  in  the  air  in  the  Carboniferous  age 
may  have  rendered  spontaneous  genera- 
tion possible,  yet,  strange  to  say,  he  dis- 
tinctly teaches  that  spontaneous  generation 
took  place  unnumbered  millions  of  years 
before  the  Carboniferous  period  com- 
menced ! Hear  him  : — 

“The first  and  longest  division  of  the  organic 
history  of  the  earth  is  formed  by  the  primeval  epoch 
or  the  era  of  the  tangled  forests.  It  comprises  the 
immense  period  from  the  first  spontaneous  generation, 
from  the  origin  of  the  first  terrestrial  organisms,  to 
the  end  of  the  Silurian  system  of  deposits.  During 
this  immeasurable  space  of  time,  which  in  all  pro- 
bability was  much  longer  than  all  the  other  four 
epochs  taken  together,  the  three  most  extensive  of  all 
the  Neptunic  systems  of  strata  were  deposited.” — 
Ilistoiy  of  Creation,  vol.  ii. , p.  9. 

Thus,  according  to  this  learned  savant, 
all  this  “immense  period”  (at  the  begin- 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


31$ 


ning  of  which  spontaneous  generation  oc- 
curred), longer  than  all  the  rest  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  earth  put  together,  ended  mil- 
lions of  years  before  the  Carboniferous  age 
began.  Yes,  after  this  “immense  period” 
had  ended,  the  entire  Devonian  age  inter- 
vened before  the  Carbon  age  was  inaugu- 
rated! Yet  this  naturalist,  who  monopo- 
lizes most  of  the  philosophical  culture  of 
his  profession,  would  establish  the  proba- 
bility of  spontaneous  generation  by  the 
excessive  presence  of  carbon  50,000,000 
years  (as  the  most  moderate  evolutionists 
estimate  it)  before  the  Carbon  period  had 
commenced ! 

How  does  he  know,  or  what  right  has 
he  to  suspect,  that  there  was  an  atom  of 
carbon  on  this  earth  as  far  back  as  the 
commencement  of  the  Devonian  age?  If 
living  beings  could  come  into  existence 
out  of  nothing,  why  could  not  carbon? 
Besides,  how  does  he  know  but  that  the 
earth  was  visited  by  a monstrous  comet  at 
the  close  of  the  Devonian  age,  and  that  it 
left  its  carbon  tail , which  inaugurated  the 
Coal  period  ? “ Indeed,  we  can  positively 

and  with  full  assurance  maintain ,”  that, 
since  the  conditions  were  “entirely  differ- 
ent” in  those  “primeval  times,”  it  may 
have  been  customary  for  comets  to  visit 
the  earth  and  leave  their  tails  as  a token 
of  friendly  regard,  and  I can  even  “posi- 
tively” assert  that  one  immense  tail  was 
composed  entirely  of  carbon,  which,  in 
time,  condensed  into  coal,  inclosing  a few 
specimens  of  vegetables  which  have  suc- 
cessfully fooled  modern  geologists,  and 
made  them  think  the  coal  mountains  were 
of  vegetable  origin!  “The  impossibility 
of  such  a process  can,  in  fact,  never  be 
proved,”  and,  of  course,  it  must  therefore 
be  accepted  as  science  ! I also  “positively” 
“maintain,”  and  “with  full  assurance,”  that 
diamonds,  which  are  composed  of  pure 
carbon,  originated  in  that  way,  owing  their 


spontaneous  generation  to  the  tail  of  a 
comet!  Haeckel  can  not  disprove  it, since 
the  “conditions”  were  so  “entirely  differ- 
ent” in  those  cometic  times.  Hence,  there 
could  have  been  no  carbon  to  cause  spon- 
taneous generation  of  monera  at  the  time 
this  theory  requires!  I fear  this  great 
naturalist  has  more  of  his  peculiar  “philo- 
sophical culture”  than  will  prove  good  for 
him,  as  we  shall  see  in  a minute. 

“Indeed,”  he  says,  “we  can  even  posi- 
tively and  with  full  assurance  maintain  that 
the  general  conditions  of  life"  at  that  time 
were  “ entirely  different  from  those  of  the 
present  time”!  With  all  deference  to  the 
authority  of  such  a sweeping  assertion,  and 
in  all  seriousness,  I will  now  prove  “posi- 
tively” that  the  “conditions  of  life”  were 
exactly  the  same  in  those  “primeval  times” 
as  they  are  at  present,  since  the  very  spe- 
cies of  fish  and  mollusks  which  lived  long 
before  the  Carboniferous  period  com- 
menced— in  the  Devonian  and  Silurian 
ages — not  only  continued  to  live  all  the 
way  through  the  Carboniferous  period,  but 
have  come  down  to  the  present  time  with- 
out the  slightest  change  in  their  organic 
structures,  as  witness  our  still  existing 
ganoids  and  numerous  species  of  shell-fish. 
Here  is  proof  which  he  probably  will  not 
ignore.  Darwin  says:— 

“Some  groups  [of  mollusks],  as  we  have  seen, 
have  endured  from  the  earliest  known  davun  of  life 
to  the  -present  day.”  . . . “In  the  genus  lingula,  for 
instance,  the  species  which  have  successively  ap- 
peared at  all  ages  must  have  been  connected  by  an 
unbroken  series  of  generations  from  the  lowest  Silu- 
rian stratum  to  the  present  day.” — Origin  of  Species, 
pp.  293,  294. 

Thus,  instead  of  the  conditions  of  life 
being  “entirely  different,”  we  here  have 
the  positive  proof  that  they  were  “entirely” 
the  same ; for  what  better  evidence  do  we 
need  than  the  fact  that  fishes  which  lived 
millions  of  years  before  the  age  of  carbon 
began,  and  also  numerous  species  of  mol- 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


376 

lusks,  have  continued  with  an  “unbroken 
series  of  generations”  through  the  Carbon- 
iferous period  and  all  other  subsequent 
periods  down  to  the  present  time  un- 
changed, as  this  highest  living  authority 
on  Evolution,  Mr.  Darwin,  assures  us?  So 
much  for  this  cheap  assertion  about  “ the 
general  conditions  of  life”  being  “entirely 
different,”  as  the  only  evidence  in  favor 
of  a possible  spontaneous  generation  in  the 
past, which  he  admits  “is  perhaps  no  longer 
possible" J Was  there  ever  a more  complete 
scientific  failure  than  this  self-instigated 
break-down? 

But  supposing  we  admit  Prof.  Haeckel’s 
philosophical  argument  for  the  present, what 
does  it  prove?  Let  us  see.  How  does  he 
know  but  that  the  various  species  were 
separately  created  by  miraculous  power  in 
those  “primeval  times,”  when  the  “con- 
ditions of  life  were  entirely  different”? 
“ The  impossibility  of  such  a process  can, 
in  fact,  never  be  proved”!  How  does  he 
know  but  that  a “carbon”  god  existed  in 
those  times  capable  of  working  miracles 
and  creating  new  species  by  special  acts 
of  power,  and  that  he  has  since  retired 
from  the  earth?  “Think  only  of  the  fact 
that  the  enormous  masses  of  carbon  ” 
“may  have  rendered”  a miracle  “possible” 
at  that  age  “which  now  is  perhaps  no 
longer  possible”!  Professor  Haeckel’s 
highly  philosophical  mode  of  reasoning 
seems  to  be  a kind  of  two-edged  logical 
sword! 

How,  in  fact,  a man  believing  in  spon- 
taneous generation  can  reasonably  object 
to  miracles,  or  to  the  separate  creation  of 
each  individual  species  by  the  direct  inter- 
position of  an  infinite  Creator,  is  more 
than  I can  imagine.  As  a proof  that  mir- 
acles must  produce  less  of  a mental  strain 
on  a logical  mind  than  the  impossible  pro- 


cess of  spontaneous  generation,  we  see  Mr. 
Darwin  deliberately  choosing  the  former 
plan  for  the  first  few  simple  beings  rather 
than  the  latter.  We  may  rest  assured  that 
had  there  been  the  least  rational  ground 
for  spontaneous  generation,  this  shrewd 
naturalist  would  never  have  been  found 
reverently  but  reluctantly  resorting  to  the 
special  intervention  of  an  infinite  Creator 
to  “breathe”  into  that  “larva”  of  a mol- 
lusk  to  find  something  by  which  to  start 
evolution!  He  would  have  almost  given 
his  life  for  Haeckel’s  scientific  assurance, 
with  a reasonable  proof  of  spontaneous 
generation.  Professor  Haeckel,  however, 
was  equal  to  the  strain;  for  while  believing 
firmly  in  spontaneous  generation,  he  ridi- 
cules the  belief  in  miracles  as  but  the 
creation  of  a superstitious  and  poetical 
faith.  But  look  at  the  difference  as  to  the 
probability  of  the  two  systems  of  creation. 
While  the  miraculous  production  of  a liv- 
ing being  by  an  act  of  the  Creator  is  only 
the  transfer  of  a vital  spark  of  a pre-exist- 
ing life  having  intellect  capable  of  planning 
the  structure,  Haeckel’s  plan,  by  means  of 
a carbon  miracle,  is  not  only  to  construct 
an  ingenious  organism  without  prior  inge- 
nuity or  mentality,  but  absolutely  to  origi- 
nate life  out  of  nothing , or  without  there 
having  been  a spark  of  life  in  the  universe 
before  it!  Such  a miracle  would  seem 
not  only  to  defy  human  imagination,  but 
ought  to  baffle  the  credulity  even  of  an 
insane  dervish!  Yet  Professor  Haeckel 
is  equal  to  the  emergency.  The  world  is 
surely  in  need  of  “philosophical  culture,” 
especially  among  believers  in  a carbon 
god  which  can  not  only  construct  ingenious 
organisms  in  the  absence  of  all  ingenuity, 
but  can  transfer  life  and  mental  powers  to 
inorganic  matter  while  it  has  neither  life 
nor  mental  powers  to  transfer! 


Ciiap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


377 


This  reductio  ad  absurdum 
Is  in  fact  a fitting  climax 
To  spontaneous  generation 
Based  on  different  life-conditions 
In  pre-carbonif.erous  ages ; 5 

For,  as  well  might  Haeckel  tell  us 
That  there  might  have  been  conditions, 
Owing  to  those  carbon  masses, 

By  which  two  and  two  made  seven 
Or  by  which  a stone  fell  upward  10 

Ora  thing  could  come  from  nothing , 
Which  he  absolutely  teaches 
In  spontaneous  generation. 

Should  I be  allowed  this  license 
Thus  to  fabricate  “conditions”  15 

As  a premise  for  conclusions 
Which  would  be  received  as  science, 
There  is  not  a superstition 
In  all  pagandom  so  monstrous 
But  that  I could  demonstrate  it  20 

As  completely  scientific, 

Just  as  plausibly  as  Haeckel 

Proves  spontaneous  generation 

By  supposable  conditions 

Prior  to  the  Carbon  epoch.  25 

Give  to  me  the  boundless  license 
Of  this  slipshod  style  of  logic 
Which  so  suits  Professor  Haeckel, 

Who  can  take  great  laws  for  granted 
On  which  man’s  existence  hinges  30 
By  such  negative  assumptions 
As  the  possible  contingence 
Of  impossible  conditions 
In  pre-carboniferous  ages; 

And  I now  will  pledge  the  reader  35 
I can  make  a better  showing 
Than  spontaneous  generation, 

And  from  reasons  far  superior 

Prove  that  species  were  eternal 

Just  as  much  as  primal  matter  40 

Is  eternal  in  its  essence. 

Give  me  only  half  this  license 

And  I will  at  once  establish 

That  all  species  have  existed 

From  eternity  as  monads  45 


Or  as  primal  animalcules, 

Like  the  dust  of  anorgana 
Floating  with  the  nebulous  atoms 
Cycling  through  the  realms  of  ether, — 
Which,  as  Kant  assumes,  collected  50 
By  some  gravitating  process, 
Concentrating  to  a center 
Forming  earth  a mass  of  fire, 

Which  perhaps  was  caused  by  friction 
And  molecular  attraction  55 

As  the  atoms  clashed  together. 

I assume,  in  this  connection, 

That  these  living  monads  floated 

With  the  nebula  primeval 

Generating  as  they  cycled  60 

By  the  usual  self-division, 

Each  part  growing  by  the  contact 
Of  the  molecules  of  mucus 
Or  primeval  protoplasm 
Constantly  accumulating  65 

In  the  nebulous  surroundings. 

Thus,  these  simple  germs  of  species, 
Having  all  essential  structures. 

Had  from  everlasting  ages 

Been  with  nebula  revolving,  70 

Living,  self-existent  beings, 

Just  as  God,  without  beginning. 

It  is  then  a simple  matter, 

Governed  by  the  rules  of  logic 
Which  Professor  Haeckel  teaches,  75 

To  assume  that  animalcules 
Of  the  form  of  dog  and  pigeon, 

Elephant  and  alligator, 

Tortoise,  moneron,  and  tadpole, 

And  all  other  living  beings,  80 

Came  by  Kant’s  great  whirling  movement 
Mingling  with  the  molten  billows 
(As  I shall  assume  at  present), 

And  continued  on  thus  mingling 

Till  the  earth  was  cooled  sufficient  85 

To  admit  of  growth  and  progress 

And  development  of  structure 

Toward  perfected  organisms. 

That  such  primal  animalcules 
Might  have  once  survived  in  fire  90 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


378 

Mid  the  incandescent  surging 
Of  that  sea  of  molten  lava, 

Like  the  mythic  salamander, 

Prior  to  the  transformation 
Of  the  earth  by  radiant  action 
Fitting  it  for  habitation 
Under  normal  life-conditions 
When  its  crust  had  cooled  sufficient 
To  collect  the  floating  vapors, 

Ought  to  be  a simple  problem 
To  a man  of  Haeckel’s  genius 
And  his  powers  of  assumption, 

For  no  science  can  disprove  it. 

Since  those  primal  life-conditions 
Might  have  been  “entirely  different ,” 
And  permitted  life  in  fire, 

If  impossible  at  present! 

Thus,  I demonstrate  completely, 
By  this  modern  style  of  logic, 

That  there  is  no  use  whatever 
For  spontaneous  generation. 

Since  my  theory  of  fire, 

With  eternity  of  species 
Is  a plausible  position 
As  compared  to  that  assumption, 
Based  upon  the  broad  conception 
That  those  primal  life-conditions 
Differed  from  the  present  period, — 
Clearly  making  salamanders 
Possible,  with  so  much  carbon 
Mingling  with  the  waves  of  lava, 

If  impossible  at  present, 

Since  “conditions”  have  so  altered! 

Then  the  broad  and  simple  idea 
And  the  probable  assumption 
That  all  species  are  eternal, 

Since  no  science  can  disprove  it 
And  no  scientist  will  question 
But  that  matter  is  eternal, 

Is  harmonious  with  Nature, 

When  compared  to  Haeckel’s  idea 
Of  creating  living  beings 
Absolutely  out  of  nothing 
And  with  no  one  to  create  them! 
And  ten  thousand  times  more  simple 


Than  the  theory  of  Darwin 
Starting  with  a single  larva, 

Worming  it  through  myriad  species 
By  the  zigzag  complex  process 
Of  unnumbered  transmutations,  50 

While  my  theory  relieves  him 
Of  that  ever-present  nightmare 
Of  an  infinite  “Creator” 

Breathing  into  one  ascidian 
As  a start  for  evolution;  55 

For  I have  assumed  all  species 
Floating  in  the  realms  of  ether 
Of  the  size  of  animalcules, 

And  by  aid  of  Haeckel’s  logic 
Still  existing  in  the  fire.  60 

Hence,  when  earth  had  cooled  sufficient 
For  the  growth  of  organisms 
Each  specific  form  has  only 
To  commence  its  onward  progress 
And  increase  of  weight  and  stature  65 
Without  passing  through  a million 
Various  forms  by  transmutation. 

I propose  to  show  the  reader, 

By  the  clearest  chain  of  logic, 

That  my  theory  is  better  70 

Infinitely  than  the  process 
Taught  by  Darwin  or  by  Haeckel, 

Making  evolution  simple, 

Giving  scope  to  every  feature 
Of  survival  of  the  fittest  75 

Under  natural  selection, 

And  completely  explicating 
Problems  for  which  Darwin's  process 
Has  no  possible  solution. 

But  before  proceeding  further  80 

With  eternity  of  species 
As  opposed  to  transmutation, 

I discard  the  fiery  feature 

(Which  I shaped  from  Haeckel’s  logic, 

Based  upon  the  brilliant  idea  85 

That  the  primal  life-conditions 

Might  allow  of  salamanders, 

Since  he  never  can  disprove  it,) 

As  at  once  opposed  to  reason 

And  consistent  views  of  Nature,  90 


5 

10 

i5 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


3 79 


Though  entirely  in  keeping 
With  the  arguments  of  Haeckel 
For  spontaneous  generation. 

On  the  grounds  of  Darwinism 
And  spontaneous. generation,  5 

I therefore  propose  the  doctrine 
Of  eternity  of  species 
As  decidedly  consistent 
With  all  that  we  know  of  science, 

And  assume  that  animalcules  10 

Representing  every  species 
Which  have  lived  in  bygone  ages, 

And  perhaps  a thousand  million 
Which  have  never  been  developed. 

Float  with  nebula  primeval,  15 

Like  the  dust  of  anorgana 
In  the  manner  intimated, — 

That  they  circulate  through  ether 
Cycling  in  the  paths  of  comets, 

And  through  every  solar  system  20 

With  all  planetary  bodies, 

Whirling  with  their  revolutions 
In  eternal  epicycloids, — 

And  that  when  the  radiation 
Of  the  earth  had  cooled  its  surface, — 25 
When  the  water  had  collected 
And  the  vegetation  started, 

Suiting  earth  for  habitation, — 

Germs,  which  constantly  were  falling 
From  sidereal  depths  of  chaos  30 

On  the  land  and  in  the  water 
Representing  every  structure 
Or  specific  organism, 

Soon  began  to  grow  and  flourish 
As  the  earth  became  adapted  35 

To  the  various  tribes  and  classes 
Under  natural  selection: 

Fish-germs  in  the  tepid  ocean, 
Mammal-germs  on  sunny  islands, 

Birds  of  every  tribe  and  species  40 

Flitting  like  the  motes  in  sunbeams, 

While  survival  of  the  fittest 
Acting  on  the  plan  of  Darwin — 

Saving  every  year  the  strongest 

And  the  most  developed  beings  45 


Of  each  microscopic  species — 

Had  no  trouble  in  selecting 

And  continually  improving 

Each  specific  organism 

By  augmenting  weight  and  stature,  50 

Free  from  all  the  complication 

And  unnecessary  humbug 

Of  transmuting  organisms 

From  one  species  to  another — 

Turning  lice  to  caterpillars,  55 

Tiny  fish  to  frogs  and  turtles, 

Changing  worms  to  anacondas, 

Mice  to  bears  and  doves  to  turkeys 
But  alone  by  persevering 
In  survival  of  the  fittest  60 

Annually  improved  the  structures 
Of  the  various  grades  of  being, 

Keeping  each  within  its  species 
As  the  simple  laws  of  Nature 
Necessarily  required,  65 

Making  more  distinct  advances 
And  perceptible  improvements 
On  those  varying  organisms 
Which  increased  with  greater  progress, — 
While  the  species  less  progressive,  70 

Such  as  moneron  and  mollusks, 

Have  been  little  cultivated, 

With  a very  few  exceptions. 

This  need  not  appear  in  conflict 
With  the  paleontologic  75 

Records,  showing  slow  advancement 
From  the  lower  organisms 
By  a scale  of  graduation 
Upward  toward  the  mammal’s  structure, 
Which  the  learned  Darwin  tells  us  '<*0 

Goes  to  favor  transmutation 
For  my  theory  supposes 
That  though  germs  of  every  species 
Fell  upon  the  land  and  water, 

None  began  the  work  of  progress  85 

Till  the  elements  were  suited, 

And  the  atmosphere  and  water 
Had  likewise  become  adapted 
To  each  special  organism. 

Thus,  by  gradual  progression,  90 


380 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Elements  became  so  suited 
To  the  various  grades  of  mollusks 
And  the  different  tribes  of  fishes 
As  to  furnish  growth-conditions; 

Then  amphibia  and  reptilia,  5 

Birds  and  hardier  grades  of  mammals, 
Took  their  turn  at  evolution, 

Till  at  last  the  earth  was  suited 
For  the  higher  organisms, — 

When  their  various  animalcules,  10 

Which  had  constantly  been  falling 
But  continued  unproductive, 

Now  commenced  the  work  of  progress 
And  development  of  structure 
Under  natural  selection,  15 

And  with  more  or  less  advances, 

As  their  organisms  varied, 

Have  at  last  attained  their  statures, 

Which  we  now  behold  around  us 
Through  survival  of  the  fittest.  20 

Thus  eternity  of  species, 

In  the  form  of  germs  or  monads, 

Unlike  Haeckel’s  inconsistent 
Notion  of  a self-creation, 

Seems  to  be  corroborated  25 

By  the  tests  of  modern  chemists 
Seeking  evidence  in  favor 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

Which  have  clearly  demonstrated 
That  each  breath  or  inhalation  30 

Of  the  atmosphere  is  loaded 
With  unnumbered  living  creatures, 

Even  when  the  air  seems  purest 

And  no  life  can  be  detected 

Under  microscopic  power;  35 

Yet  within  the  laboratory 

Small  bacteria  are  developed 

And  increased  in  size  and  structure 

By  the  chemical  solutions, 

Till  all  doubt  is  dissipated  40 

That  invisibly  they  floated 
In  the  air  as  living  creatures. 

Should  Professor  Haeckel  meet  me 
With  the  plausible  objection 
That  such  interstellar  monads  45 


Could  not  live  without  the  presence 
Of  an  atmospheric  substance, 

Since  the  smallest  midge  will  perish 
Instantly  within  a vacuum, — 

I reply  that  life-conditions  50 

In  those  interstellar  regions 
“ Positively”  are  quite  ♦different,” 

And  “maintain”  “with  full  assurance” 
That  if  fish  which  lived  in  carbon 
Prior  to  the  coal  formations  55 

Could  so  change  their  life-conditions 
As  to  reach  the  present  period 
Without  any  alteration 
Of  their  forms  or  organisms, 

As  with  certain  groups  of  ganoids,  60 

Interstellar  animalcules 

Might  survive  on  Tyndall’s  ether , 

Having  properties  like  “jelly,” — 

Might  have  passed  unscathed  through  fire, 
And  grown  fat  on  Haeckel’s  carbon ! 65 

But  to  answer  this  objection 
I need  not  retort  on  Haeckel 
With  his  stultifying  logic, 

But  to  satisfy  the  reader 

Who  may  honestly  propound  it  70 

I would  simply  urge  that  matter, 

Even  that  which  earth  is  made  of, 

Once  was  nebulous  and  scattered 
As  the  dust  of  anorgana, — 

That  each  molecule  or  atom  75 

Had  its  absolute  proportion 
Of  the  atmospheric  substance 
Which  now  forms  the  earth’s  envelop, 
Since  the  atmosphere  is  matter, 

And  all  matter  is  eternal.  80 

It  therefore  agrees  with  science 

That  the  nebulous  collection 

Of  the  dust  of  anorgana 

Had  our  atmospheric  substance, 

And  in  quantity  sufficient  85 

To  support  the  life  of  beings 
Like  bacteria  and  monads 
Such  as  I suppose  the  species 
Were  primordially  in  Nature. 

Thus,  I have  a sounder  basis  90 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


For  eternity  of  species 

Than  can  be  adduced  by  Haeckel 

For  spontaneous  generation, 

While  the  very  futile  efforts 
He  essays  to  form  such  basis 
Through  his  chemical  researches, 
Trying  to  produce  such  beings 
By  a laboratory  process, 

Show  that  living  forms  are  present 
Even  in  the  purest  substance, 

Such  as  atmosphere  and  water, 

And  while  microscopes  are  worthless 
In  attempts  to  visualize  them. 

It  is  vastly  more  consistent, 

Rational  and  scientific, 

As  my  theory  requires, 

Having  much  less  complication, 

That  each  species  should  develop 
Simply  by  the  growth  of  structure, 
Under  natural  selection 
Or  survival  of  the  fittest, 

From  its  form  as  animalcule 
Than  to  make  one  form  develop 
Into  myriad  diverse  structures, 

As  the  law  of  transmutation 
From  a worm  coerces  species. 

It  would  save  a deal  of  trouble 
Tracing  such  a transmutation 
Through  infinitude  of  changes 
To  assume  that  sheep , for  instance, 
With  specific  organism, 

Dropped  from  out  the  stellar  regions — 
Microscopic  woolly  monads — 

Perfect  in  their  form  and  outline, 

But  with  bodies  vastly  smaller 
Than  the  smallest  ticks  or  weevils, 

And  that  under  such  selection 
And  continued  cultivation 
As  survival  of  the  fittest 
Furnishes  in  all  such  cases 
There  would  seem  no  difficulty 
In  developing  the  structures 
Of  these  tiny  ovine  creatures 
In  a million  generations 
Till  perfected  as  at  present. 


381 

Such  a process  under  Nature 
Would  be  perfectly  consistent 
With  the  evidence  of  science 
And  established  laws  of  progress, 

Which  the  best  experts  in  breeding  50 

And  methodical  selection 

Have  confirmed  by  observation, — 

That  if  Nature's  plan  be  followed 
And  the  strongest  only  favored, 

Without  separating  beings  55 

Having  special  variations, 

And  without  the  least  restriction 
Placed  upon  their  intercrossing, 

Only  in  so  far  as  weeding 

Out  the  smaller,  weaker  members,  60 

Just  as  natural  selection 

Does  with  every  native  species, 

Man  could  never  form  a sub-breed 
Even  as  to  varying  structure, 

Much  less  such  a breed  as  Cotswalds  65 
Or  the  celebrated  Southdowns, 

Though  he  clearly  would  make  progress 
In  developing  a larger, 

Stronger,  hardier  race  of  beings. 

Mice  afford  an  illustration  70 

Of  my  theory  of  species, 

Over  Darwin’s  transmutation; 

For  how  could  a mouse,  develop 
From  some  ancient  pouched  marsupial, 
Like  the  kangaroo  or  wombat,  75 

As  supposed  from  fossil  records, 

And  continually  grow  smaller 
While  the  same  marsupial  parent 
Gave  the  start  to  dogs  and  lions, 

Horses,  elephants,  and  camels?  80 

If  the  policy  of  Nature 
Is  development  of  structure 
From  the  lower  toward  the  higher, 

Why  not  cultivate  a species 

Keeping  it  within  the  limits  85 

Of  specific  organism, 

Rather  than  transmute  the  outline 
Of  one  member  of  such  species 
To  another  race  of  beings? 

If  a mouse,  by  evolution,  90 


5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 


382 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


Can  be  changed  to  wolf  or  tiger, 

Deer  or  horse  or  dromedary, 

Why  could  not  a mouse  have  risen 

By  specific  cultivation 

Under  natural  selection  5 

To  the  size  of  bear  or  panther, 

And  continue  mouse  in  structure 
Only  as  to  weight  of  body, 

Making  rats  as  large  as  oxen — 

Squirrels  large  as  moose  and  reindeer?  10 
Why  should  laws  of  transmutation, 
Complicating  Nature’s  problems, 

Seek  to  thread  such  devious  mazes, 

When  a mouse  might  be  developed 
With  advantage  to  the  species  15 

To  the  size  and  strength  of  lions 
And  agility  of  tigers, 

Keeping  it  within  the  limits 
Of  its  own  specific  nature, 

Easier  than  reach  the  lion  20 

Through  the  vast  concatenation 
Of  a thousand  different  species, 

While  the  mouse  remains  unaltered 
With  diminutive  proportions, 

Nothing  but  a mouse  forever?  25 

Nature’s  laws  do  not  thus  trifle, 

Going  through  a thousand  changes 
To  produce  a wolf  or  leopard 
By  transmuting  mice  and  squirrels, 

While  the  latter  would  have  answered  30 
Just  as  well  if  raised  in  stature 
To  the  size  of  wolves  and  leopards. 

But  with  laws  of  evolution 
Based  upon  this  new  departure 
That  all  species  are  eternal,  35 

And  that  each  commenced  in  monads 
Or  the  size  of  animalcules, 

Thence  developing  in  structure, 

Each  according  to  its  nature 

And  intrinsic  vital  forces,  40 

There  can  be  no  difficulty 

In  the  simple  fact  just  given 

That  a bat  or  mouse  is  smaller 

Than  a wolf  or  orang-outang. 

All  such  problems  may  be  settled  45 


j By  the  fact  that  one  develops 
Faster  than  the  other  species, 

Or  that  one  began  its  progress 
On  the  earth' before  the  other; 

And  that  hence  in  time  a squirrel  50 
May  be  seen  the  size  of  panther 
And  a mouse  as  large  as  lion! 

Under  this  new  law  of  progress 
And  of  origin  of  species, 

There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  55 

Why  there  should  not  yet  develop 
In  the  vast  unreckoned  future — 

Giant  oysters,  crabs,  and  lobsters, 
Minnows  large  as  whales  or  larger, 
Garter-snakes  like  anacondas,  60 

Tadpoles  vast  as  alligators, 

Elephantine  flies  and  beetles, 

Mastodontic  lice  and  midges, 

Mammoth  humming-birds  and  sparrows, 
Larger  than  the  swan  and  ostrich ! 65 

Darwin  teaches  us  that  horses, 

Dogs,  and  even  men  and  monkeys, 

Are  the  lineal  descendants 
Of  the  bat  or  small  cheiropter, 

Or  at  least  are  blood-relations,  70 

Having  equally  descended 

From  some  fish  as  common  parent.* 

This  would  plainly  show  that  horses 
Once  were  small  as  bats  or  wood-mice, 

Or  that  bats  were  large  as  horses,  75 
And  have  since  degenerated, 

Which  is  flatly  contradicted 
By  “survival  of  the  fittest.”! 

Hence  the  horse’s  present  stature, 
Coming  from  so  small  a pattern  80 

* “We  may  further  venture  to  believe  that  the 
several  bones  in  the  limbs  of  the  monkey , horse,  and 
bat,  were  originally  developed  on  the  principle  of 
utility,  probably  through  the  reduction  of  more  nu- 
merous bones  in  the  fin  of  some  ancient  fish-like 
progenitor  of  the  whole  class.” — Darwin,  Origin 
of  Species,  p.  160. 

f “As  natural  selection  works  solely  by  and  for 
the  good  of  each  being,  all  corporeal  and  mental 
endowments  will  tend  to  progress  toward  perfec- 
tion.”— Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  p.  428. 


CiiAr.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


383 


As  a bat  is  explicated 

Only  by  this  new  assumption 

That  all  species  are  eternal 

And  began  in  animalcules 

Each  developing  in  structure  5 

Under  natural  selection 

To  its  present  limitation. 

And  with  such  a view  of  species 

We  can  well  believe  that  mammals 

Most  diminutive  in  Nature  xo 

Will  be  gradually  developed 

Till,  in  weight  their  bodies  equal 

Those  of  lions,  bears,  and  cougars, — 

While  bovine  and  equine  species 

Will  continue  on  progressing  15 

By  survival  of  the  fittest 

(Or  at  least  would  have  continued 

But  for  man’s  debut  in  Nature), 

Till,  like  mastodontic  monsters 
They  attain  a bulk  so  ponderous  20 

That  supplies  of  food  shall  fail  them 
In  the  struggle  for  existence, 

When  inevitable  extinction 
Follows  by  the  laws  of  Nature. 

Viewing  species  as  eternal,  25 

And  the  theory  here  outlined 
As  a substitute  for  Darwin’s 
Complicated  transmutation, 

And  as  infinitely  better 

Every  way  than  that  of  Haeckel,  30 

Nature  then  becomes  a system 

Simple  in  its  operation, 

As  a plan  at  once  monistic, 

Which  these  authors  so  insist  on, 

And  the  origin  of  species  35 

Has  no  miracle  about  it, 

So  distasteful  to  these  writers, 

And  no  God  and  no  Creation 
Nor  necessity  for  either, 

Which  should  suit  Professor  Haeckel,  40 
Since  it  logically  relieves  him 
From  that  most  stupendous  nonsense 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

Clearly  and  distinctly  blending 

Kant’s  cosmogony  with  Darwin’s  45 


Law  of  natural  selection. 

Haeckel  only  has  to  think  of 
Bulls  and  horses  less  than  woodlice 
Just  beginning  to  develop 
Under  natural  selection,  50 

Recent  immigrants  it  may  be 
Switched  off  from  the  tails  of  comets, 

And  it  is  the  simplest  matter 
In  the  range  of  Nature’s  wonders 
Then  to  watch  these  creatures  growing  55 
In  the  struggle  for  existence, 

Every  year  or  generation 
Adding  to  their  weight  and  stature 
By  survival  of  the  fittest, 

Till  their  present  grand  proportions  60 

Had  been  reached  by  evolution; 

Though  their  anatomic  outlines 
And  organic  conformations 
Never  had  been  changed  the  slightest 
Since  their  animalcules  landed  65 

And  began  their  work  of  progress. 

No  such  evolution  nonsense 
As  hipparion  forms  of  structure 
Living  in  the  various  epochs, 

Like  the  three-toed  orohippus,  70 

Mesohippus,  Miohippus, 

Protohippus,  pliohippus, 

Or  whatever  other  hippus 
Huxley  may  invent  and  picture, 

Through  which  equine  animalcules  75 

Had  to  plod  before  they  reached  us 
Fashioned  in  the  form  of  horses. 

Is  not  this  a grand  and  simple 
Process  when  compared  to  Darwin’s 
Crooked,  complex  transmutation,  80 

Which  does  absolutely  teach  us 
That  before  a horse  existed 
Or  had  reached  the  primal  hippus, 

It  must  be  a wolf  and  jackal, 

Kangaroo  and  seal  and  tortoise, — 85 

Then  four  thousand  kinds  of  fishes, 

Less  or  more,  it  matters  little, — 

Shellfish  then  of  various  patterns, 

Till  at  last  it  reach  the  larva 
Of  the  veritable  ascidia, 


384 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Which  he  thinks  a wise  “Creator” 

Made  as  prototype  in  common 
For  all  higher  organisms, 

But  which  Haeckel  has  improved  on 
By  that  moneron  primeval  5 

Which  was  actually  so  simple 
That  it  made  itself  from  nothing. 

Then,  just  think,  by  way  of  contrast, 

Of  a flea  perhaps  just  started 
On  its  aphanipterous  journey,  10 

Having  landed  on  this  planet 
Since  the  recent  glacial  period, 

Or  as  Haeckel  might  express  it, 

Having  “ sprung  ” into  existence 

Out  of  inorganic  matter, — 15 

Which,  according  to  my  doctrine 

Of  the  origin  of  species 

And  developmental  progress, 

Must  throughout  the  coming  ages 

Also  grow  in  weight  and  stature  20 

To  the  size  of  horse  or  camel, 

Leaping  clear  across  the  ocean, 

As  some  one  has  calculated, 

From  America  to  England 

At  one  bound,  if  jumping  power  25 

In  this  saltatorial  monster 

Should  be  equally  developed! 

I now  ask  the  candid  reader 
If  this  theory  of  species 
And  their  origin  in  Nature,  30 

With  their  perfect  types  continued 
Through  developmental  progress 
From  each  form  as  animalcule, 

With  such  germs  of  life  eternal, 

Never  having  been  created,  35 

Is  not  vastly  more  consistent 

And  in  harmony  with  reason 

Than  the  theory  of  Darwin 

Starting  from  a single  larva, 

Or  not  over  half  a dozen  40 

(Which  reluctantly  he  judges 
May  perhaps  have  been  created), 

And  by  complex  transmutations 
Reach  the  higher  organisms ; — 

Or  than  Haeckel’s  forced  assumption,  45 


With  a moneron  to  start  with 
Formed  from  inorganic  matter, 

With  no  mind  to  organize  it, — 

After  which,  the  same  as  Darwin’s, 
Threads  the  intricate  meanderings  50 

Of  all  living  forms  of  structure 
To  the  higher  grades  of  being? 

It  must  seem  far  more  like  reason 
And  anthropologic  fitness, 

To  assume  that  man  developed  55 

From  a human  animalcule, 

With  a human  organism 
Infinitesimal  in  structure, 

With  primeval  germs  of  spirit, 

Rather  than  begin  his  progress  60 

As  a microscopic  crawfish, 

Moneron,  or  mollusk-larva, 

As  these  other  systems  teach  us. 

If  man  must  commence  a monad 

Or  a simple  animalcule  65 

With  imperfect  organism, 

As  both  theories  assure  us, 

Would  it  not  be  more  consistent 

With  the  very  laws  of  reason 

And  all  scientific  fitness  70 

That  such  tiny  organism 

Should  be  absolutely  human, 

Anatomically  considered, 

Rather  than  a louse  or  woodtick, 

Or  a moneron  or  polyp,  75 

Then  be  forced  to  change  his  structure 
Many  million  times  thereafter 
Prior  to  becoming  human? 

Is  the  process  not  as  easy 
And  ten  thousand  times  more  simple,  80 
For  a man  to  start  evolving 
From  a human  animalcule 
Than  commence  the  same  precisely 
From  a speck  of  protoplasm 
Such  as  monera  are  made  of,  85 

With  the  added  evolution 
Of  a million  transmutations, 

And  through  forms  the  most  incongruous, 
Opposite  and  inconsistent, 

As  compared  to  human  structure?  90 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation . 


38s 


Man  thus  starting  with  a structure 
Of  his  own  in  all  essentials, 

Though  it  be  but  microscopic, 

We  may  watch  his  evolution 
By  insensible  progression  5 

Through  unnumbered  generations, — 
Every  age  becoming  larger 
Through  survival  of  the  fittest 
And  through  warlike  competition 
In  the  struggle  for  existence  10 

Till  he  had  attained  the  stature 
Of  the  mythic  Lilliputian, 

Each  development  below  him 

Having  been  exterminated 

By  the  more  developed  beings,  15 

Till  by  ages  of  improvement 

Through  survival  of  the  fittest 

He  at  last  attains  the  stature 

Of  the  present  Anglo-Saxon. 

Monkeys  starting  in  the  same  way  20 
From  their  primal  animalcule, 

But  with  weaker  mental  powers, 

Could  not  plan  extermination 
Of  their  undeveloped  kindred 
As  did  man,  the  type  above  them;  25 
Hence  the  monkeys  show  gradation 
From  the  ponderous  gorilla 
Downward  in  their  bulk  and  stature 
Almost  to  the  animalcule, 

Or  to  species  not  much  larger  30 

Than  a common,  mouse  or  chipmunk, 

Showing  by  the  force  of  logic 

That  the  primal  organism 

Leading  to  the  entire  order 

Might  have  been  an  animalcule.  35 

And  right  here  the  ethnologic 
Question  finds  a fair  solution, 

Through  which  various  tribes  and  races 
And  peculiar  forms  and  colors 
Which  divide  the  human  species  40 

May  be  clearly  explicated, 

By  the  fact  that  early  beings, 

With  their  tender  forms  depending 
Almost  solely  on  albumen, 

When  perhaps  as  small  as  crickets,  45 


Ere  the  osteologic  framework 
Had  assumed  substantial  structure, 

Took  that  bent  of  form  and  outline 
Which  those  races  still  exhibit 
From  environment  of  nature  50 

And  peculiar  modes  of  living, 

Some  retarded  in  their  progress 
Stunted  by  climatic  causes; 

While  the  varying  shades  of  color 
Which  still  cling  to  certain  races,  55 

As  may  be  supposed  with  safety, 

Owe  their  origin  to  pigments 
Found  in  vegetable  substance, 

Such  as  certain  kinds  of  hemp-seed 
And  the  fruits  of  diverse  colors  60 

On  which  different  tribes  subsisted 
As  they  first  divaricated 
Settling  in  the  epidermis, 

Giving  permanent  complexion 
To  their  plastic  organism.*  65 

Here  again  monistic  order 
Seems  to  be  the  rule  in  Nature, 

Thus  distinctly  coinciding 
With  the  published  views  of  Darwin 
That  all  human  tribes  and  races  70 

Sprang  from  but  one  human  parent.f 
But  consistently  my  doctrine 
Of  the  origin  of  species 
From  their  primal  animalcules 
Might  go  farther  still  than  Darwin’s,  75 
And  suppose  that  human  races 
Each  had  separate  commencement 
From  a special  human  monad 
Which  perhaps  by  chance  descended 


* “It  is  well  known  that  hemp-seed  causes  bull- 
finches and  certain  other  birds  to  become  black.” — 
— Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants , vol.  ii. , p.  337. 

f “Through  the  means  just  specified,  aided  per- 
haps by  others  as  yet  undiscovered,  man  has  been 
raised  to  his  present  state.  . . . Nevertheless,  all 
the  races  agree  in  so  many  unimportant  details  of 
structure  and  in  so  many  mental  peculiarities,  that 
these  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  inheritance  from 
a common  progenitor;  and  a progenitor  thus  charac- 
terized would  probably  deserve  to  rank  as  ?nan.”— 
Darwin,  Descent  of  Man,  p.  C08. 


336 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


On  the  various  main  divisions 
Of  the  land,  producing  verdure, 

Such  as  continents  and  islands; 

Thus  the  African  or  negro 
Having  gradually  developed 
From  a special  animalcule, 

While  Mongolian  and  Indian 
Had  a similar  commencement 
From  their  own  specific  monads. 

With  this  view  of  human  races, 
Which  my  second  thought  approves  of, 
Darwin’s  greatest  difficulty — 

“ Geographic  distribution  ” — 

Is  completely  explicated, 

And  the  vexed  and  mooted  question 
How  die  Indian  got  a foothold 
In  this  country  need  no  longer 
Be  a controverted  problem, — 

While  it  saves  the  puzzled  Darwin 
All  the  trouble  of  inventing 
Inconvenient  modes  of  transit, 

So  improbable  in  reason, 

For  the  various  mammal  species 
To  far-off  oceanic  islands, 

Such  as  that  of  carrying  foxes 
To  the  distant  Falkland  Islands 
By  the  means  of  floating  icebergs 
Drifting  from  the  Arctic  regions! 

It  requires  but  the  simple 
And  consistent  supposition 
That  this  fox’s  animalcule 
Fell  by  chance  upon  those  islands 
And  in  time  became  developed 
To  its  present  wolf-like  stature; 

While  this  simple  explanation 
Solves  all  similar  enigmas 
Which  exist  by  tens  of  thousands, 

And,  without  the  supposition 
That  all  species  are  eternal 
And  commenced  from  animalcules, 
Have  no  rational  solution. 

Haeckel  taunts  the  “dualistic” 

Plan,  as  he  prefers  to  call  it, 

By  which  species  are  developed 
First  by  miracle  at  starting, 


Then  by  generative  process 
Through  specific  laws  of  Nature, 
Claiming  that  his  own  assumption 
Is  “monistic,”  and  the  only 
Simple,  uniform,  consistent 
System  possible  in  reason ; 

Yet  instead  of  monoism 
In  development  of  beings 
j His  is  really  trialistic, 

Teaching  three  distinct  arrangements 
One,  “ spontaneous  generation,” 

Or  a “coming”  into  being 
By  an  act  of  self-creation ; — 

One  by  laws  of  transmutation 
I Under  natural  selection 
By  which  all  succeeding  species 
Have  specifically  been  started; — 
And  the  third  by  generation 
And  material  growth  of  structure! 

If  he  wants  to  be  “monistic” 

And,  as  he  pretends,  consistent 
As  to  origin  of  species, 

Let  him  drop  his  two  arrangements 

Of  spontaneous  generation 

And  the  slow  transmuting  process, 

And  accept  the  simple  idea 

Of  a special  act  of  power 

By  an  infinite  Creator 

For  each  individual  species; 

Or  if  philosophic  “culture  ” 

Must  repudiate  such  nonsense 
As  a miracle  in  Nature, 

He  can  take  the  truly  simple 
And  “monistic”  plan  suggested — 
That  all  species  were  developed 
From  specific  animalcules 
Which  had  never  been  created, 

But  have  lived  from  endless  ages 
As  essential  germs  of  being. 

In  concluding  this  discussion 
Of  spontaneous  generation, 

I appeal  to  every  reader 
If  this  travesty  on  Haeckel 
And  his  farcical  assumption 
Of  creation  out  of  nothing, 


5 

io 

!5 

20 

25 

3° 

35 

40 

45 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


387 


By  this  simple  supposition 
Of  eternity  of  species 
And  their  first  origination 
On  this  earth  through  animalcules, 

Is  not  every  way  more  simple,  5 

Probable,  and  self-consistent, 

As  a true  “monistic”  process, 

Than  the  dual  plan  of  Haeckel 
Or  the  double  plan  of  Darwin? 

While  it  solves  the  endless  problems  10 
Of  unnumbered  transmutations, 

Each  of  which  is  so  unlikely 
And  improbable  in  science, — 

While  it  obviates  the  folly 

Of  an  infinite  Creator  15 

Forming  one  specific  creature, 

Such  as  moneron  or  larva, 

Delegating  to  it  power 
To  create  all  other  beings, 

Thus  without  a single  question  20 

Making  it  His  own  vicegerent 
Or  the  acting  God  of  Nature, 

And  then  actually  retiring 
From  all  further  observation 


Or  concern  about  the  matter, — 25 

While  it  settles  all  the  problems 
Geographic  distribution 
Has  so  puzzlingly  suggested, 

Giving  natural  selection 

And  survival  of  the  fittest  30 

Such  a simple  operation 

As  development  of  species 

From  monadic  forms  and  structures 

To  mature  organic  statures, 

It  is  infinitely  fitting,  35 

Simple,  uniform,  consistent, 

As  a scientific  thesis 

When  compared  to  Haeckel’s  idea 

Of  spontaneous  generation, 

And  the  utterly  preposterous  40 

Thought  that  inorganic  matter 
Could,  by  possible  commingling 
Or  an  accidental  blending 
Of  its  lifeless,  senseless  atoms, 

Form  a living,  sentient  creature, — 45 

And  thus,  since  no  life  existed 
Prior  to  this  operation, 

Manufacture  life  from  nothing! 


388 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


CONCLUSION  OF  CHAPTER  VII. 


Professor  Haeckel  teaches,  as  the  reader 
has  already  become  aware,  that  the  moneron 
was  the  “primeval  parent  of  all  other  or- 
ganisms,” and,  being  the  very  simplest  of 
all  creatures,  that  it  was  the  only  organic 
being  which  could  have  originated  by 
spontaneous  generation  or  without  par- 
ental reproduction,  because  it  alone  of  all 
organisms  is  “ composed  of  one  single  sub- 
statue.”  Speaking  of  the  Spontaneous  Gen- 
eration of  Monera,  he  says: — 

“Only  such  homogeneous  organisms  as  are  yet  not 
differentiated  and  are  similar  to  the  inorganic  crys- 
tals in  being  homogeneously  composed  of  one  single 
substance  could  arise  by  spontaneous  generation  and 
could  become  the  primeval  parents  of  all  other  or- 
ganisms.” — Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  vol.  i., 
P-  345- 

Leaving  out  of  the  question  the  idea  of 
a living  creature  without  organs  and  com- 
posed of  but  “one  single  substance,”  so 
fully  exposed  in  the  preceding  pages,  we 
shall  for  the  present  suppose  it  to  be  a fact 
that  the  moneron  is  strictly  homogeneous, 
containing  but  a single  substance,  the  same 
as  a crystal — a diamond,  for  example — and 
it  will  at  once  be  seen  that  it  overthrows 
completely  Darwin’s  theory  of  transmuta- 
tion of  one  species  into  another  by  natural 
selection,  since  almost  any  logical  mind 
will  admit  that  a being  thus  without  organs 
and  composed  of  “one  single  substance” 
only,  formed  by  spontaneous  generation, 
can  no  more  produce  “variations,”  which 
require  the  correlation  and  interaction  of 
various  substances  and  organs,  and  which 
form  the  foundation  for  “natural  selec- 
tion” and  “survival  of  the  fittest,”  than 
can  the  “one  single  substance”  of  the  dia- 
mond spontaneously  vary  and  evolve  itself 
into  the  emerald  or  sapphire. 

The  only  spontaneous  variation  possible 
or  conceivable  in  a being  or  a crystal  com- 
posed of  “one  single  substance,”  and  with- 


out parts  or  organs  to  differentiate,  sup- 
posing such  a thing  possible  with  a being, 
would  be  to  occur  in  larger  or  smaller 
lumps  of  this  single  homogeneous  sub- 
stance the  same  as  in  the  diamond.  To 
suppose  such  a creature,  purely  of  one 
substance,  capable  of  taking  on  organs  or 
additional  substances  from  inorganic  mat- 
ter by  inheritance  or  descent  from  itself  alone 
(since  it  is  propagated  alone  by  “self -divi- 
sion”} would  be  the  climax  of  absurdity; 
while  if  additional  substances  and  hetero- 
geneous organs  could  be  added  from  anor- 
gana,  or  the  crude  materials  of  Nature, 
without  inheritance,  then  these  substances 
and  organs  could  have  been  added  by  the 
same  inorganic  laws  and  forces  which  pro- 
duced the  being  in  the  act  of  spontaneous 
generation!  But  as  Professor  Haeckel 
tells  us  it  was  impossible  for  Nature  to 
produce  a being  out  of  anorgana  with 
parts  and  organs,  or  with  more  than  “one 
single  substance,”  then  this  “homogeneous 
organism”  is  forever  chained  to  its  “one 
single  substance”  and  its  organless  form 
till  some  power  in  addition  to  the  laws 
acting  among  the  particles  of  inorganic 
matter  is  brought  to  bear  on  it.  But  as 
there  could  have  been  no  supernatural 
agency  in  the  start,  and  no  power  of  any 
kind  to  produce  organs  or  animate  more 
than  “one  single  substance,”  as  Professor 
Haeckel  asserts,  hence  it  follows  unavoid- 
ably that  without  supernatural  interposi- 
tion after  the  act  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion the  moneron  could  never  have  varied, 
— could  never  have  assumed  an  organ  or 
taken  on  an  additional  substance, — which 
utterly  annihilates  Darwin’s  law  of  trans- 
mutation at  the  very  start,  since  if,  in  the 
process  of  spontaneous  generation  there 
can  be  no  organs  and  no  substances  com- 
bined to  differentiate,  there  can  be  no  va- 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


389 


nations  after  it  to  produce  improvements 
under  the  same  inorganic  laws;  and  if  no 
variations,  then  no  natural  selection  and 
no  survival  of  the  fittest,  consequently  no 
evolution  to  higher  grades  of  organism. 
Besides,  Darwin’s  system  teaches  through- 
out, which  is  constantly  reiterated  by 
Haeckel,  that  “natural  selection”  can  act 
“only”  on  “ inherited ” variations.  I will 
quote  one  or  two  passages,  which  might 
be  increased  to  a hundred : — 

“Unless  favorable  variations  be  inherited  by  some 
at  least  of  the  offspring,  nothing  can  be  affected  by 
natural  selection .” 

“Natural  selection  acts  only  by  the  preservation 
and  accumulation  of  small  inherited  modifications.” 

“Any  variation  which  is  710 1 i/iherited  is  unim- 
porta/it  for  us.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp. 
9.  75.  80. 

Now,  as  there  can  be  no  inheritance 
among  monera,  since  their  only  mode  of 
propagation  is  “ self -division,”  or  by  each 
individual  creature  cutting  itself  into  two 
equal  parts,  each  of  which  becomes  a du- 
plicate of  its  former  self,  it  follows  that 
there  can  be  no  “inherited”  variations 
and  no  transmission  of  them  to  descend- 
ants; and  consequently  it  follows,  as  Dar- 
win says,  that  “ nothing  can  be  affected  by 
natural  selection” ; and  as  neither  Darwin 
nor  Haeckel  claims  any  other  mode  of  evo- 
lution from  lower  to  higher  organisms  than 
“natural  selection,”  it  inevitably  follows 
that  monera  could  not  have  evolved  or 
been  transmuted  into  a higher  species! 
If  pigeons,  for  example,  propagated  their 
species  by  a “^//"-division”  of  their  bodies 
each  into  two  equal  parts,  as  do  monera, 
there  could  certainly  be  no  inheritance  be- 
tween such  equal  parts,  because  inherit- 
ance implies  parent  and  offspring.  As 
neither  half  of  the  pigeon  could  claim  to 
be  the  father  or  the  offspring,  each  being 
equally  and  essentially  the  same  identical 
individual  duplicated,  it  must  be  clear  to 
every  reflecting  mind  that  in  case  of  pro- 


pagation by  “self-division,”  there  can  be 
no  offspring,  and  hence  no  such  thing  as 
inheritance;  consequently  among  the  mon- 
era (the  very  foundation  for  evolution,  ac- 
cording to  Haeckel),  “nothing”  could  have 
been  “affected  by  natural  selection,”  as 
Darwin  positively  declares. 

Thus,  Haeckel’s  “scientific”  basis  of 
evolution  in  this  marvelous  moncron,  by 
which  a “natural  order  of  development” 
was  to  be  constructed  and  no  thanks  to 
Darwin’s  “Creator,”  has  fallen  to  the 
ground  at  his  very  threshold  of  “Creation.” 
He  can  show  no  possible  way  to  get  his 
homogeneous  “parents  of  all  other  organ- 
isms” to  move  one  hair’s  breadth  in  the 
way  of  variation  from  their  original  organ- 
less lumps  of  “one  single  substance”;  and 
even  if  they  should  vary,  such  variations 
could  not  be  made  available  by  natural 
selection,  since  all  ideas  of  inheritance  are 
necessarily  excluded.  Does  not  transmu- 
tation from  monera,  then,  clearly  break 
down  at  the  very  start? 

The  above  disastrous  overthrow  of  “de- 
velopment by  inheritance”  at  its  incip- 
iency  would  seem  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  fact,  as  Haeckel  assures  us,  that  the 
moneron  still  continues  “ the  simplest  of 
all  imaginable  organisms,”  after  millions 
upon  millions  of  years;  still  found  without 
the  least  addition  to  its  “one  single  sub- 
stanqe”  the  same  as  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Laurentian  period,  long  before  the 
Carboniferous  or  Coal  age  began,  at  which 
time  he  thinks  the  “conditions”  were  so 
“favorable,”  there  being  so  much  carbon 
in  the  air  that  spontaneous  generation  was 
“ possible  ” even  if  it  is  not  now.  Not- 
withstanding the  millions  of  years  thus  in- 
tervening since  this  “ parent  of  all  other 
organisms  ” was  first  ushered  into  being 
out  of  inorganic  matter,  it  still  continues 
destitute  of  “ parts”  or  “organs”  without 
the  slightest  advance  toward  heterogeneous 


39° 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


structure, — still  propagates  its  species  by 
the  same  “pinching”  process,  resulting  in 
“self-division;”  and, of  course, without  im- 
provement, since  it  is  still  the  “simplest  of 
all  imaginable  organisms.” 

Is  it  at  all  likely,  if  this  moneron  were 
of  such  a nature  as  to  be  capable  of  vary- 
ing by  adding  extraneous  ingredients  to  its 
“one  single  substance,”  or  by  developing 
organs  in  its  structureless  and  “homoge- 
neous” body  which  might  lay  the  founda- 
tion for  a higher  species,  that,  after  this 
enormous  interval  of  time  since  those  favor- 
able Carboniferous  conditions, it  would  not 
show  some  slight  addition  of  substance,  or 
the  smallest  sign  of  developing  organs?  Is 
it  not  an  astonishing  fact,  that,  after  these 
hundreds  of  millions  of  years,  as  most 
evolutionists  estimate  the  interval,  not  one 
moneron  can  be  found  tending  in  any  de- 
gree toward  a change  from  that  “one  single 
substance”  or  that  organless  body  it  had 
when  first  formed  out  of  inorganic  matter 
by  spontaneous  generation?  Finally,  is  it 
possible  that  at  one  time  only  and  in  one 
place  only  in  the  history  of  this  earth  a 
single  moneron  varied  slightly,  giving  rise 
to  a variety  of  monera  which  led  on  through 
additional  variations  to  other  varieties,  and 
finally  resulted  in  a new  specific  organiza- 
tion? This,  as  I shall  soon  show,  is  virtu- 
ally taught  both  by  Haeckel  and  Darwin. 
If  it  be  so,  that  at  one  time,  in  one  place, 
and  in  one  individual  moneron  only,  such 
variation  occurred  leading  on  to  countless 
varieties  graduated  to  a new  species  of 
monera,  and  this  again  in  thousands  of 
transitional  varieties  toward  another  speci- 
fic structure,  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that 
not  a single  descendant  of  any  one  of  these 
thousands  of  improved  varieties  and  species 
of  monera  leading  toward  higher  organisms 
has  come  down  to  us,  and  yet  that  the  ori- 
ginal and  unimproved  species  continues 
throughout  this  long  struggle  for  existence 


in  countless  millions  of  individuals  exactly 
the  same  as  when  first  spontaneously  gen- 
erated? 

Darwin  teaches,  as  I shall  hereafter  abun- 
dantly show  by  quotations  from  his  volu- 
minous works,  that  the  improved  descend- 
ants of  any  organic  species  in  their  grad- 
ual development  toward  a higher  grade  of 
structure,  must  invariably  “supplant  ” and 
“exterminate  ” the  unimproved  or  parent 
form  in  the  struggle  for  existence,  as  it  is 
only  such  exterminating  process  of  the 
unimproved  individuals,  through  “survival 
of  the  fittest,”  by  which  “natural  selection” 
can  work,  and  solely  through  this  destruc- 
tion of  the  unimproved  by  which  an  ad- 
vance is  made  from  a lower  toward  a higher 
grade  of  organic  being.  Three  or  four 
passages,  only,  will  suffice  for  the  present 
argument,  as  follows: — 

“ Hence  we  see  why  all  the  species  in  the  same 
region  do  at  least,  if  we  look  to  long  enough  inter- 
vals of  time,  become  modified,  for  otherwise  they 
•would  become  extinct.'' 

“ New  varieties  continually  take  the  place  of  and 
supplant  the  parent  forms." 

“New  and  improved  varieties  will  inevitably 
supplant  and  exterminate  the  older." 

“ In  all  cases  the  new  and  improved  forms  of  life 
lend  to  supplant  the  old  and  unimproved  forms." — • 
Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  264,  266,  292,  413. 

This  legitimate  tendency  of  “survival  of 
the  fittest  ” is  reiterated  by  Darwin  in  a 
score  of  different  ways.  If  monera  are  the 
“primeval  parents  of  all  other  organisms,” 
as  Haeckel  so  repeatedly  tells  us,  then 
according  to  these  citations  from  this 
highest  authority  on  Modern  Evolution, 
there  ought  not  to  be  a moneron  in  exist- 
ence, since  “new  and  improved  varieties 
will  inevitably  supplant  and  exterminate  the 
older."  As  the  monera  have  not  been  sup- 
planted and  exterminated  by  their  imp  roved 
descendants,  but  are  perhaps  to-day  the 
most  numerous  of  all  living  creatures, 
covering  almost  the  entire  bottom  of  the 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


39i 


ocean,  while  their  supposed  improved  de- 
scendants— the  thousands  of  modified  spe- 
cies of  monera,  which,  in  the  very  nature  of 
things,  were  necessary  in  gradually  ap- 
proaching higher  grades  of  organism — have 
not  a single  representative,  living  or  fossil- 
ized, to  show  that  such  diverging  varieties 
ever  existed,  is  it  not  the  only  logical  con- 
clusion that  these  monera  never  varied  in 
their  structure — never  were  under  the 
control  of  Darwin’s  natural  selection — and 
never  produced  any  improved  varieties  at 
all  ? — and  consequently  that  Prof.  Haeckel, 
in  thus  recklessly  staking  his  whole  cause 
of  evolution  on  this  “homogeneous,”  or- 
ganless creature,  has  deliberately  thrown 
it  away,  and  yielded  the  entire  question  of 
transmutation  of  species  by  natural  selec- 
tion? 

Is  it  possible  that  Professor  Haeckel  can 
be  right  in  regard  to  monera  being  the 
“primeval  parents  of  all  other  organisms” 
and  diverging  gradually  under  natural  se- 
lection through  numerous  varieties  and 
specific  forms  which  have  not  left  a single 
specimen  to  tell  the  tale,  while  monera 
still  exist  by  countless  millions,  and  that 
Darwin  still  tells  the  truth  in  the  following 
quotation  ? — 

“From  these  several  considerations  I think  it  in- 
evitably follows  that  as  new  species  in  the  course  of 
time  are  formed  through  natural  selection,  others 
will  become  rarer  and  rarer  and  finally  extinct . ” — 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  36. 

To  suppose  that  the  very  lowest  organ- 
ism, the  weakest,  the  most  defenseless , the 
best  adapted  as  food  for  others,  and  conse- 
quently the  most  unfit  for  survival , instead 
of  becoming  “rarer  and  rarer  and  finally 
exdnct,”  should  still  exist  in  countless  mil- 
lions, while  its  thousands  of  supposed  va- 
rieties which  were  unavoidably  necessary 
for  transmutation  to  higher  species,  should 
have  all  succumbed  without  a specimen 
remaining  to  indicate  such  transitional 


gradations, — with  Darwin  at  the  same  time 
repeatedly  declaring  that  if  such  monera 
had  so  varied  and  become  thereby  the 
parents  of  advancing  species,  their  im- 
proved descendants  would  have  “ inevit- 
ably” supplanted  and  exterminated  them, — • 
is  a pitiable,  irrational,  and  puerile  hypo- 
thesis, whose  improbability  can  only  be 
equalled  by  its  absurdity,  and  whose  origi- 
nation can  only  be  accounted  for  either 
as  a deliberately  planned  burlesque  on 
Darwin’s  theory  of  descent,  or  else  as  the 
freak  of  a scientific  adventurer  incompe- 
tent to  reason  logically  on  any  philosophi- 
cal question. 

I ought,  perhaps,  to  have  been  a little 
more  explicit  in  regard  to  the  impossibility 
of  natural  selection  having  anything  to  do 
with  monera,  or  other  beings  which  propa- 
gate their  kind  by  a self-division  of  their 
bodies, owing  to  the  absence  of  “inherited” 
variations.  Let  us  carefully  examine  the 
law  of  transmission  in  the  case  of  such 
beings,  and  see  if  it  does  not  completely 
shut  out  natural  selection  with  its  entire 
paraphernalia  of  “struggle  for  existence” 
and  “survival  of  the  fittest,”  as  explained 
by  Darwin,  and  thus  demonstrate  the  im- 
possibility of  transmutation  of  the  lower 
forms  of  life  into  the  higher  grades  of  or- 
ganic structure. 

Even  supposing  it  possible  for  a moneron 
of  but  “one  single  substance”  and  organ- 
less, to  vary  in  its  form  or  substance,  or  to 
take  on  an  extraneous  organ,  such  varia- 
tion could  not  be  perpetuated  and  trans- 
mitted, for  the  reason  that  the  first  self- 
division of  the  individual  which  had  thus 
varied  would  halve  this  abnormal  or  acci- 
dental peculiarity, — thus  at  once  reducing 
instead  of  augmenting  it,  by  dividing  it 
between  the  two  individual  or  duplicate 
beings,  while  each  additional  subdivision 
in  the  bodies  of  the  descendants  would  re- 
duce the  abnormity  by  a proportional  dilu- 


3 92 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


tion  till  it  would  entirely  disappear,  thus 
defying  natural  selection. 

This  would  be  equally  as  true  of  a bene- 
ficial or  serviceable  variation  as  of  a 
merely  worthless  protuberance  or  excres- 
cence. It  matters  not  of  how  much  value 
a spontaneous  variation  in  a moncron  might 
prove  to  be  if  perpetuated  by  being  accu- 
mulated and  augmented  through  natural 
selection, this  law  of  self-division  precludes 
the  possibility  of  all  such  interference,  for 
a single  divergence  occurring  among  mil- 
lions of  individuals  would  be  beyond  the 
reach  of  natural  selection,  since  it  would 
commence  running  out  by  this  diluting 
tendency  of  self-division,  as  stated,  without 
a possible  chance  for  augmentation,  and 
would  thus  soon  become  extinct. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  if  monera  can  or 
do  vary  at  all,  it  is  but  very  seldom,  as  no 
naturalist  has  yet  seen  one  with  even  a 
spontaneous  wart  on  its  little  body.  Hence, 
natural  selection  could  not  begin  to  work 
on  such  a scarcity  of  material, even  if  within 
its  law  of  operation,  before  the  peculiarity 
would  disappear  entirely  by  continual  sub- 
divisions. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a single  moneron 
should  accidentally  vary  by  developing  two 
perfect  eyes  on  some  part  of  its  body.  The 
very  first  self-division  would  either  give 
one  eye  to  each  half,  according  to  the  di- 
rection in  which  the  line  of  division  should 
take  place,  or  else  give  both  eyes  to  one 
half,  which  would  leave  the  other  half  ex- 
actly in  its  normal  condition,  the  same  as 
if  no  spontaneous  variation  had  occurred. 
If  one  half  of  the  moneron  should  con- 
tinue to  retain  both  eyes  at  each  self-divi- 
sion, then  natural  selection  could  do  noth- 
ing to  extend  this  improvement  to  any 
other  individual  of  the  race,  as  there  would 
be  no  transmission  of  the  eyes,  and  conse- 
quently no  inheritance  of  them,  and  it  must 
be  remembered  that  “natural  selection  acts 


only  by  the  accumulation  and  preservation 
of  small  inherited  modifications,”  and  hence 
as  soon  as  that  individual  retaining  the 
two  eyes  should  happen  to  die  there  would 
be  an  end  to  that  variation,  terminating 
and  leaving  the  race  as  blind  as  before, 
and  exactly  the  same  as  if  no  such  an  ac- 
cidental pair  of  eyes  had  been  developed, 
notwithstanding  natural  selection  looked 
on,  so  to  speak,  a helpless  spectator  all  the 
while.  Even  if  that  individual  half  should 
live  and  retain  the  two  eyes  forever,  such 
a fact  could  never  result  in  the  improve- 
ment of  another  individual  of  the  race  or 
make  the  slightest  advance  toward  a trans- 
mutation, since  inheritance  is  entirely  out 
of  the  question. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  this  abnormity 
should  be  equally  divided  between  the  two 
halves  at  the  first  segregation,  giving  one 
eye  to  each  of  the  duplicate  individuals, 
then,  instead  of  the  descendants  from  these 
two  halves  being  benefited  by  receiving 
each  an  eye  apiece,  the  first  self-division 
of  either  body  having  one  of  the  eyes  would 
either  give  the  single  eye  to  one  half  (which 
would  leave  it  exactly  in  the  position  of  the 
first  moneron  just  described  which  retained 
the  two  eyes),  or  the  eye  would  be  wholly 
destroyed  by  the  line  of  division  passing 
through  it,  thus  annihilating  the  improve- 
ment at  the  second  stage  of  descent,  since 
we  can  not  conceive  any  benefit  to  the  two 
last-named  duplicate  monera  by  having 
half  an  eye  apiece ! And  if  natural  selec- 
tion could  reach  the  case  at  all,  as  we  see 
it  can  not,  it  would  make  sorry  progress, 
since  it  would  then  find  but  the  cicatrice 
of  an  eye  to  work  on,  which  would  indi- 
cate the  appearance  of  an  eye  less  and  less 
at  each  subsequent  self-division. 

Thus,  by  every  possible  view  of  the  case, 
unsexual  beings,  which  transmit  their  de- 
scendants by  the  self-division  of  their 
bodies,  as  did  Haeckel’s  “primeval  parents 


ClIAF.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


393 


of  all  other  organisms,”  necessarily  shut 
out  the  idea  of  inheritance  as  wholly  im- 
possible in  their  mode  of  descent;  and 
hence,  as  seen  from  the  very  highest  au- 
thority on  the  subject,  natural  selection 
can  do  nothing  for  them  nor  with  them, 
since  any  accidental  or  spontaneous  varia- 
tion which  might  arise  in  an  individual, 
however  beneficial,  would  be  immediately 
destroyed  by  self-division,  or  being  retained 
by  one  half  only  would  die  with  that  half 
and  thus  come  to  an  end,  without  the  pos- 
sibility of  it  being  extended  to  other  indi- 
viduals of  the  race,  much  less  leading  to  a 
transmutation  of  monera  to  monkeys. 

Expressed  syllogistically  the  argument 
becomes  at  once  simple  and  unanswerable, 
as  follows: — 

I.  — Without  natural  selection  there  can 
be  no  evolution  or  transmutation  of  one 
species  to  another,  as  both  Haeckel  and 
Darwin  agree. 

II.  — Without  the  inheritance  of  sponta- 
neous variations  among  the  members  of  a 
species  there  can  be  no  natural  selection, 
since  Darwin  repeatedly  and  in  various 
forms  lays  down  the  law  that  “natural  se- 
lection acts  only  by  the  accumulation  and 
preservation  of  small  inherited  modifica- 
tions.” 

III.  — As  there  can  be  no  inheritance  in 
the  true  sense  among  monera  and  no  trans- 
mission of  an  accidental  improvement  to 
descendants,  owing  to  its  immediate  de- 
struction by  self-divisions  or  its  retention 
wholly  by  one  of  the  duplicate  beings,  it 
follows  therefore  that  monera  were  beyond 
the  reach  of  natural  selection,  and  conse- 
quently beyond  the  possibility  of  transmu- 
tation to  another  species. 

IV.  — The  general  conclusion  is  there- 
fore unavoidable,  that  Professor  Haeckel’s 
basis  of  evolution  has  utterly  broken  down; 
and  as  Darwin  equally  with  Haeckel  holds 
that  the  first  simple  beings  which  were 


“breathed”  into  by  the  “Creator,”  as  the 
foundation  for  evolution,  were  widiout  sex 
and  propagated  by  self-division,  his  theory 
of  primal  transmutation  from  such  unsex- 
ual  beings  has  likewise  gone  by  the  board. 

Clearly,  then, by  the  repeatedly  expressed 
views  of  both  Haeckel  and  Darwin  as  to 
the  scope  and  powers  of  natural  selection 
in  dealing  “only”  with  “inherited”  modi- 
fications, the  spontaneously  generated  mon- 
era of  the,  former  and  the  “few  simple 
beings”  of  the  latter  were  necessarily  be- 
yond the  range  of  Darwin’s  great  transmut- 
ing law;  consequently  Professor  Plaeckel’s 
brilliant  spontaneous  inauguration  of  life 
and  evolution  by  a natural  chain  of  de- 
scent from  man  down  to  nothing,  forming 
thus  a philosophical  connection  between 
Kant’s  Cosmogony  and  Lamarck’s  Theory 
of  Descent,  has  proved  a total  and  igno- 
minious failure.  He  must  therefore  man- 
age in  some  way  to  get  up  another  “ spon- 
taneous generation  ” a few  steps  in  advance 
of  monera — beings  composed  of  more  than 
“one  single  substance,”  with  a structure 
capable  of  differentiating  and  correlating, 
— not  like  his  lumps  of  albumen,  “without 
parts  or  organs”;  and  even  then,  if  they 
do  not  embrace  some  other  mode  of  trans- 
mitting their  peculiarities  to  descendants 
than  self-division  of  their  bodies,  he  might 
as  well  frankly  abandon  his  absurd  policy 
of  spontaneity,  and  acknowledge  as  does 
Darwin  that  an  infinite  “Creation”  was  at 
the  bottom  of  the  work,  breathing  into  the 
first  organic  creatures  the  breath  of  life; 
though  it  is  evident,  had  Darwin  foreseen 
the  utter  powerlessness  of  natural  selection 
in  doing  anything  with  creatures  which 
propagate  their  kind  by  self-division,  for 
the  want  of  inheritance,  he  would  have 
taken  the  precaution  to  see  that  his  “Cre- 
ator” should  have  “breathed"”  into  a class 
of  “beings”  not  quite  so  “simple.” 

But  even  supposing,  for  the  sake  of  the 


394 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


argument,  that  the  self-divisions  among 
monera  were  in  every  way  equivalent 
to  the  sexual  transmissions  of  offspring 
among  higher  species,  is  it  possible  for  an 
1 accidental  peculiarity,  however  beneficial, 
occurring  in  a single  individual,  to  be  so 
favored  by  natural  selection  as  to  be  per- 
petuated, and  thus  made  to  improve  the 
race  or  species  to  which  such  individual 
belongs?  I answer  emphatically  that  even 
in  our  higher  genera  and  species  of  mam- 
mals the  most  marked  and  useful  variation 
spontaneously  occurring,  unless  under 
compulsory  separation  and  methodical  se- 
lection,would  be  immediately  lost  and  ob- 
literated by  promiscuous  intercrossing  with 
the  normal  individuals  of  the  same  species, 
and  that  no  possible  influence  of  natural 
selection  could  prevent  such  obliteration 
of  abnormity  or  cause  it  to  advance  the 
race  one  iota  in  a transmutation  of  that 
species  toward  another. 

The  direct  and  natural  tendency  of  an 
abnormal  structure  to  run  out  and  disap- 
pear of  itself  in  a ferine  state,  or  when  not 
continuously  cultivated  by  intelligent  se- 
lection,^ admitted  among  naturalists  gen- 
erally. This,  added  to  the  fact  of  promis- 
cuous intercrossing  in  a state  of  nature, 
would  immediately  dilute  and  then  destroy 
any  spontaneous  deviation  of  structure, 
however  useful,  before  natural  selection 
or  survival  of  the  fittest  would  have  time 
to  make  the  least  advance  toward  im- 
provement. 

Suppose,  for  example,  among  wild  asses, 
which  exist  in  herds  of  thousands,  a male 
should  be  born  with  a single  horn  in  the 
middle  of  the  forehead.  Although  this 
weapon  would  be  of  great  service  in  offense 
and  defense  among  its  fellows  in  mastering 
the  males  and  getting  possession  of  the 
females,  as  Darwin  claims,  yet  its  first  off- 
spring would  ei  her  be  hornless  by  a natu- 
ral reversion  or  possess  but  stunted  horns, 


being  one  half  diluted  by  the  normal  fe- 
male structure.  1 his  horn  peculiarity  in 
the  second  generation,  would,  by  reversion 
and  natural  dilution,  no  doubt  almost  en- 
tirely disappear;  while  in  the  third  genera- 
tion not  a scintilla  of  the  abnormity  would 
probably  be  seen.  This  is  shown  by  ob- 
servation, and  corroborated  by  reason,  to 
be  the  natural  tendency  of  all  abnormities 
when  not  restrained  by  methodical  selec- 
tion and  intelligent  culture. 

I will  now  proceed  to  demonstrate  this 
principle  to  the  reader’s  satisfaction  by 
adducing  the  evidence  of  the  highest  liv- 
ing authority  on  this  subject — Mr.  Darwin 
himself.  He  says: — 

“ I saw  also  that  the  preservation  in  a state  of 
nature  of  any  occasional  deviation  of  structure,  such 
as  a monstrosity,  would  be  a rare  event ; and  that  if 
at  first  preserved  it  would  generally  be  lost  by  sub- 
sequent intercrossing  with  ordinary  individuals.” — 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  71. 

“ But  we  have  no  evidence  of  the  appearance,  or 
of  the  continued  procreation  under  nature,  of  abrupt 
modifications  of  structure;  and  various  general  rea- 
sons could  be  assigned  against  such  a belief:  for  in- 
stance, without  separation  a single  monstrous  varia- 
tion -would  almost  certainly  be  soon  obliterated  by 
crossing." — Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants,  vol. 
ii.,  p.  495. 

I would  now  appeal  to  the  reader,  and 
candidly  ask  him  if  Darwin  has  not  liter- 
ally and  without  any  forced  construction 
of  his  words  surrendered  the  whole  theory 
of  natural  selection  preserving  and  accu- 
mulating small  inherited  modifications, 
and  thus  finally  so  changing  the  form  and 
structure  of  one  species  as  to  transmute  it 
into  another?  To  admit  that  an  “abrupt 
modification,”  a “single  monstrous  varia- 
tion,” or  an  “occasional  deviation  of  struc- 
ture such  as  a monstrosity,”  would  be  lost 
by  “intercrossing  with  ordinary  individ- 
uals” and  thus  “obliterated,”  in  the  very 
face  and  eyes  of  natural  selection  power- 
less to  prevent  it,  is  an  absolute  yielding 
of  the  whole  question  which  he  has  labored 


CHAr.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


395 


so  long  and  so  persistently  to  establish;  for 
if  natural  selection  can  not  preserve,  or 
save  from  being  “lost,”  a marked  “modifi- 
cation,” how  in  the  name  of  natural  science 
and  common  reason  can  a small  variation 
be  saved  from  thus  being  lost  under  the 
same  conditions? 

Is  there  any  essential  difference,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  between  a large  variation 
and  a small  one  which  should  give  the  ad- 
vantage to  the  small  one  as  to  the  chances 
of  being  perpetuated  by  natural  selection? 
Common  sense  would  suggest  that  the  ad- 
vantage should  be  the  other  way.  Darwin 
does  not  pretend  at  all,  in  any  part  of  his 
writings,  that  there  is  the  least  difference 
essentially  in  their  nature  except  as  to 
prominence;  but  right  to  the  contrary,  as- 
serting repeatedly  that  a monstrosity  is 
only  a larger  grade  of  variation,  yet  of  the 
same  nature,  and  with  no  line  separating 
the  large  from  the  small  by  which  to  pre- 
vent their  graduation  into  each  other. 
Hear  him : — ■ 

“Monstrosities  can  not  be  separated  by  any  dis- 
tinct line  from  slighter  variations.” — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  6. 

“Monstrosities  graduate  so  insensibly  into  mere 
variations  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  them." — 
Animals  and  Plants,  vol.  ii. , p.  306. 

Here,  then,  unless  language  in  England 
means  something  altogether  different  from 
what  it  is  understood  to  signify  in  the 
United  States,  the  whole  bottom  falls  out 
of  natural  selection  b / this  truthful  and 
most  rational  inculcation  of  Mr.  Darwin 
himself  in  regard  to  all  accidental  varia- 
tions in  a species,  whether  large  or  small, 
being  of  the  same  nature;  and  also  by  his 
distinct  admission,  which  every  one  must 
acknowledge  to  be  correct,  that  even  the 
most  marked  and  prominent  variations 
which  occur  in  a species  will  be  obliterated 
by  intercrossing,  notwithstanding  the  pres- 
ence of  natural  selection  and  survival  of 
the  fittest! 


Not  only  is  there  no  line  separating 
prominent  deviations  in  a species  from 
slighter  variations,  thus  making  monstrosi- 
ties and  small  divergencies  one  and  the 
same  thing  except  as  to  quantity,  but  they 
are  proved  to  be  of  exactly  the  same  nature 
by  being  caused  in  the  same  manner  and 
under  similar  conditions: — 

“All  such  changes  of  structure, whether  extremely 
slight  or  strongly  marked,  which  appear  among 
many  individuals  living  together,  may  be  considered 
as  the  indefinite  effects  of  the  conditions  of  life  on 
each  individual  organism.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.6. 

Thus,  as  in  the  case  of  monera,  where 
propagation  of  the  race  is  by  self-division, 
we  see  in  higher  grades  of  organism  the 
same  result,  and  that  no  variation  can  be 
perpetuated  where  individuals  of  the  spe- 
cies are  left  free  to  mingle  and  intercross; 
and  therefore  there  is  no  power  in  Nature 
nor  in  natural  selection  to  transmute  one 
species  into  another, since  neither  Darwin, 
Huxley,  nor  Haeckel  claims  such  a thing 
to  be  possible,  only  by  the  rigid  preserva- 
tion for  long  intervals  of  time  of  the  spon- 
taneous variations  which  naturally  occur 
in  a species.  As  such  spontaneous  varia- 
tions, whether  large  or  small, will  be  “lost,” 
as  Darwin  admits,  if  left  free  or  without 
forcible  separation  and  intelligent  selec- 
tion, there  has  therefore  never  been  a 
power  in  Nature  capable  of  causing  the 
transmutation  even  of  a sheep  into  a goat 
or  of  a duck  into  a goose.  It  being  thus 
broadly  conceded  by  Darwin  that  a mon- 
strosity can  not  be  saved  by  natural  selec- 
tion and  made  available  for  transmutation, 
and  then  quite  as  broadly  admitted  that 
there  is  not  the  least  difference  between  a 
monstrosity  and  “lesser  variations”  except 
as  to  size  and  quantity,  what  need  we  of 
further  witness?  We  might  well  repeat  the 
words  of  a very  emphatic  speaker,  and  apply 
them  to  Mr.  Darwin — “Out  of  thine  own 
mouth  will  I judge  thee.” 


396 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


But  a word  or  two  more  right  here  with 
Mr.  Darwin  and  his  favorite  theory  of  nat- 
ural selection,  though  this  is  hardly  the 
proper  place  to  begin  the  review  of  his 
special  and  peculiar  arguments,  which  I 
had  not  intended  to  touch  till  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  chapter;  but  as  the  dis- 
cussion bears  directly  on  the  subject  of  the 
transmutation  of  monera,  and  since  we  are 
now  upon  one  of  the  very  weak  points  of 
the  theory  in  the  self-stultifying  position 
of  this  great  author  in  regard  to  monstrosi- 
ties and  lesser  variations,  I want  to  find 
out  from  Mr.  Darwin,  while  the  subject  is 
fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  reader, what  is  the 
matter  with  natural  selection  that  it  can 
not  manage  to  utilize  a distinct  or  promi- 
nent variation  and  turn  it  to  account  in 
the  transmutation  of  a species  when  it  can 
utilize  small  divergencies  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  convert  an  oyster  into  an  alligator,  a 
fish  into  a kangaroo,  or  a mouse  into  an 
elephant? 

According  to  this  author’s  general  opin- 
ion of  natural  selection,  as  expressed  in 
numerous  places  throughout  his  various 
works,  it  far  surpasses  man’s  powers  of 
comprehension,  discrimination,  and  selec- 
tive judgment;  in  fact,  he  insists  that  it  is 
as  far  superior  to  man  and  his  best  efforts 
in  improving  a species  by  methodical  or 
intelligent  selection  “as  the  works  of  the 
Creator  are  to  those  of  man,”  or  “the  works 
of  Nature  are  to  those  of  art.” 

Look  at  the  following  graphic  descrip- 
tion of  natural  selection: — 

“If  man  can  by  patience  select  variations  useful 
to  him,  why,  under  changing  and  complex  condi- 
tions of  life, should  not  variations  useful  to  Nature’s 
living  products  often  arise  and  be  preserved  or  se- 
lected? What  limit  can  be  put  to  this  power,  act- 
ing during  long  ages  and  rigidly  scrutinizing  the 
whole  constitution,  structure,  and  habits,  of  each 
creature, — favoring  the  good  and  rejecting  the  bad  ? 
T can  see  no  limit  to  this  power  in  slowly  and  beau- 
tifully adopting  each  form  to  the  most  complex  re- 
lations of  life.  The  theory  of  natural  selection, 


even  if  we  look  no  further  than  this,  seems  to  be  in 
the  highest  degree  probable.” 

“But  natural  selection, as  we  shall  hereafter  see, 
is  a power  incessantly  ready  for  action , and  is  as 
immeasurably  superior  to  man’s  feeble  efforts  as  the 
works  of  Nature  are  to  those  of  art.” 

Speaking  of  the  eye  as  the  work  of  natural 
selection,  he  says : — 

“Selection  will  pick  out  with  unerring  skill  each 
improvement.  Let  this  process  go  on  for  millions 
of  years  . . . and  may  we  not  believe  that  a living 
optical  instrument  might  thus  be  formed  as  superior 
to  one  of  glass  as  the  works  of  the  Creator  are  to 
those  of  man?"— Origin  of  Species,  pp.  49, 146,412. 

Yet  with  all  this  wonderful  superiority 
of  natural  selection  over  man’s  power  in 
cultivating  a species,  Darwin  admits  in 
another  part  of  his  book  that  man  can  take 
a monstrous  or  half-monstrous  form,  or  any 
visible  improvement  or  variation  in  a spe- 
cies,separate  the  being  thus  diverging  from 
the  normal  creatures,  and,  by  methodical 
selection  and  the  prevention  of  free  inter- 
crossing can  soon  create  a distinct  breed. 
He  says: — 

“lie  [the  breeder]  often  begins  his  selections  by 
some  half -monstrous  form,  or  at  least  by  some  modi- 
fication prominent  enough  to  catch  the  eye.” — 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  65. 

But  man  can  not  even  do  this  without 
great  care,  great  and  long  experience,  a 
most  accurate  eye  and  discriminating 
judgment.  Lacking  any  of  these  quali- 
fications, his  efforts  will  prove  a failure. 
Darwin,  speaking  of  methodical  selection, 
says : — 

“Not  one  man  in  a thousand  has  accuracy  of 
eye  and  judgment  sufficient  to  become  an  eminent 
breeder.  If  gifted  with  these  qualities,  and  he 
studies  his  subject  for  years,  and  devotes  his  lifetime 
to  it  with  indomitable  perseverance,  he  will  succeed, 
and  may  make  great  improvements;  if  he  wants 
any  of  these  qualities  he  will  assuredly  fail  l'ew 
would  readily  believe  in  the  natural  capacity  and 
years  of  practice  requisite  to  become  even  a skillful 
pigeon-fancier.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.  23. 

Now,  putting  these  things  all  together, 
we  have  a mass  of  contradictions  which 
might  not  at  first  impress  the  superficial 


Ciiap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


397 


reader,  but  which,  when  carefully  looked 
into,  utterly  and  hopelessly  breaks  down 
natural  selection  as  an  efficient  means  in 
Nature  for  the  transmutation  of  species, 
as  claimed  by  Darwin. 

In  the  first  place,  natural  selection  is  far 
superior  to  man’s  powers  in  improving  a 
species  by  taking  advantage  of  and  pre- 
serving spontaneous  variations. 

In  the  next  place,  natural  selection  can 
do  nothing  with  a monstrosity  or  a promi- 
nent variation,  but  allows  it  to  die  out  at 
once  by  intercrossing;  while  man,  so  vastly 
inferior, — as  far  beneath  this  marvelous 
law  of  Darwin  as  the  works  of  man  are 
beneath  those  of  the  Creator, — “ begins  his 
selections  by  some  half -monstrous  form,”  and 
so  on  down  in  his  “feeble  efforts  ” can 
operate  on  any  deviation  of  structure  visi- 
ble by  the  microscope;  while  natural  selec- 
tion, with  its  vastly  superior  powers,  not 
only  fails  on  monstrous  and  half-monstrous 
deviations,  allowing  them  to  be  “ lost  ” for 
want  of  man’s  power  of  separating  them 
from  the  common  herd,  but  it  also  fails  in 
the  same  manner  on  all  smaller  variations 
for  reasons  before  shown,  as  they  are  all 
of  the  same  nature  and  caused  by  the  same 
conditions,  with  no  difference  between 
them  (except  in  quantity,  giving  the  prefer- 
ence by  all  odds  to  the  larger  divergencies , 
if  natural  selection  had  a hundredth  part 
the  “capacity”  of  the  breeder),  since  all 
kinds  of  variations  come  under  the  same 
law.  graduating  “ insensibly  ” into  each 
other,  with  no  line  separating  the  large 
from  the  small. 

Then  man,  notwithstanding  his  manifest 
superiority  in  saving  large  and  small  varia- 
tions, can  do  nothing  in  the  work  of  selec- 
tion or  the  improvement  of  a breed,  if  he 
lacks  the  “ accuracy  of  eye  and  judgment” 
and  “natural  capacity ,” — he  must  study  his 
subject  with  per  sever  ancc, — and  “if  he  lacks 
any  of  these  qualities  he  will  assuredly 


fail.”  Yet  natural  selection, without  “eyes,” 
without  “judgment,”  with  no  “capacity,” 
no  “patience,”  no  “perseverance,”  no  sense, 
and  no  intellect, — incapable  of  saving  the 
largest  or  the  smallest  variation  from  being 
lost  by  intercrossing, — is  described  by  Dar- 
win as  11  rigidly  scrutinising  the  whole  con- 
stitution, structure,  and  habits  of  each  crea- 
ture,— favoring  the  good  and  rejecting  the 
bad,” — “will  pick  out  with  unerring  shill 
each  improvement — so  “immeasurably  su- 
perior to  man’s  feeble  efforts”  that  he  “can 
see  no  limit  to  this  power  in  slowly  and 
beautifully”  transmuting  a tadpole  into  a 
lion  or  a moneron  into  a monkey!  Yet  it 
can  not  preserve  from  being  lost  the  most 
palpable  variation  in  a species,  which  the 
commonest  breeder  could  easily  “pick  out,” 
then  utilize  and  convert  into  a distinct 
breed. 

Such  is  a hurried  glance  at  the  incon- 
gruous absurdities  into  which  Darwin  is 
involved  by  his  futile  attempts  to  make 
this  ridiculous  law  of  natural  selection 
take  the  place  and  assume  the  role  of  a 
God. 

Before  concluding  this  chapter  I must 
refer  to  an  intimation  I made  some  time 
ago,  that, according  to  the  teaching  of  both 
Haeckel  and  Darwin, there  can  be  but  one 
“center  of  creation”  for  any  species;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  the  variation  which  leads 
to  a variety  of  structure,  and  thence  on 
through  other  variations  to  species, genera, 
families,  orders,  and  classes,  could  never, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  occur  but  at 
one  time  and  in  one  place.  Let  us  now 
see  if  this  is  not  substantially  so: — 

“Every  animal  and  vegetable  species  has  arisen 
only  once  in  the  course  of  time  and  only  in  one  place 
on  the  earth — its  so-called  ‘center  of  creation’ — by 
natural  selection.  I share  this  opinion  of  Darwin’s. 
. . . For  it  is  quite  incredible,  or  could  at  least  only 
be  an  exceedingly  rare  accident,  that  all  the  mani- 
fold and  complicated  circumstances — all  the  differ- 
ent conditions  for  the  struggle  for  life,  which  influ- 


398 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


encc  the  origin  of  a new  species  by  natural  selection 
— should  have  worked  together  in  exactly  the  same 
agreement  and  combination  more  than  once  in  the 
earth’s  history,  or  should  have  been  active  at  the 
same  time  at  several  different  points  of  the  earth’s 
surface.” — IIaeckel,  Ilistoi-y  of  Creation,  vol.  i., 
P-  352. 

“ Hence  it  seems  to  me,  as  it  has  to  many  other 
naturalists,  that  the  view  of  each  species  having 
been  produced  in  one  area  alone,  and  having  subse- 
quently migrated  from  that  area  as  far  as  its  powers 
of  migration  and  subsistence  under  past  and  present 
conditions  permitted,  is  the  most  probable.” — Dar- 
WIN,  Origin  of  Species,  p.  321. 

Though  Haeckel  supposes  that  in  the 
lower  forms  of  life,  such  as  monera,  amoe- 
bae, protista,  &c.,  it  might  be  possible  for 
the  same  variation  to  have  occurred  at 
different  times  and  in  more  than  one  place 
(which  I will  show  involves  all  the  conse- 
quences of  the  above  fatal  position),  yet 
when  the  organism  had  become  sufficiently 
differentiated  to  form  a heterogeneous 
structure,  the  occurrence  of  a variation 
which  would  inaugurate  a new  species  in 
more  than  one  place  and  at  more  than  one 
time  he  thinks  could  not  happen, consider- 
ing the  infinite  chances  to  the  contrary. 

Let  us  now  look,  for  a few  moments,  at 
the  direct  tendency  and  result  of  this  es- 
sential feature  of  the  evolution  theory  as 
perfected  under  natural  selection.  If  the 
origin  of  a species  could  not  occur  only  at 
one  time  and  in  one  place,  it  could  only 
receive  its  first  impulse  by  a chance  or 
spontaneous  variation  of  one  individual, — 
the  single,  identical  being,  which  actually 
did  so  vary  at  that  time  and  place , which 
variation  was  taken  up  by  its  descendants, 
augmented  and  accumulated  by  survival 
of  the  fittest  and  preserved  by  natural  se- 
lection till  it  ran  all  the  way  from  a variety, 
faintly  marked,  to  a well-defined  specific 
structure. 

This,  then,  being  the  law  under  which 
a new  species  must  be  formed  by  natural 
selection,  the  tenure  of  man’s  existence  on 


this  earth  (if  Darwinism  be  true,  and  if 
there  be  no  supervising  intelligence  above 
Nature  controlling  its  affairs)has  for  count- 
less millions  of  times  hung  upon  the  merest 
thread  of  contingency, — the  merest  acci- 
dent of  a certain  spontaneous  variation 
occurring  in  some  animal  in  a certain 
place  and  at  a certain  time,  and  this  con- 
tingency repeated  with  each  of  the  millions 
of  varieties  and  species  living  and  extinct, 
through  which  man’s  lineal  descent  can  be 
traced  from  the  time  he  branched  off  from 
the  monkey  down  to  the  lowest  form  of 
life — the  moneron. 

To  begin  with  the  monkey,  let  us  take 
a moderate  survey  of  man’s  tenure  of  being 
and  the  infinite  chances  through  which  he 
has  passed.  At  one  time  and  “ in  only 
one  place  on  the  earth,”  when  no  human 
being  existed,  a certain  monkey — accord- 
ing to  all  evolutionists — possibly  an  orang- 
outang, was  born,  having  a slightly  larger 
brain  or  some  other  structural  variation 
pointing  faintly  toward  the  future  human 
race.  This  exact  spontaneous  variation, 
whatever  it  was,  had  never  before  occurred 
and  could  never  occur  afterward,  countinc 
the  chances,  since  had  it  occurred  before 
or  after,  there  would  have  been  other  races 
of  human  beings,  which  Darwin  distinctly 
asserts  could  not  have  been  the  case.  It 
follows,  then,  that  had  this  little  orang 
died  before  maturity  (or  without  trans- 
mitting its  peculiarity  to  its  offspring)  by 
one  of  the  thousands  of  accidents  to  which 
monkey-life  was  liable,  no  human  being 
would  ever  have  lived  upon  this  earth,  be- 
cause no  other  time  nor  place  nor  little 
monkey  would  have  answered  the  purpose. 
Not  only  so,  but  had  the  mother  of  that 
little  orang  died  before  its  birth,  or  had 
any  one  of  her  long  line  of  ancestors 
(counted  perhaps  by  millions,  since  the 
first  monkey  was  developed  from  the  dog) 
accidentally  died  without  progeny,  it  would 


Chap.  VII. 


Spontaneous  Generation. 


299 


have  severed  the  lineal  chain,  and  would 
have  inevitably  prevented  the  existence  of 
the  mother,  and  consequently  of  the  little 
orang  with  a high  torehead,  and  hence  the 
earth  to-day  would  hold  no  organic  being 
higher  than  the  quadrumana!  Are  evolu- 
tionists prepared  to  accept  these  millions 
of  contingencies  for  man’s  existence  on 
earth,  going  no  farther  back  than  his  lineal 
relationship  with  monkeys? — and  then  are 
they  ready  to  believe  that  had  one  of  those 
millions  of  contingencies  occurred,  no 
power  above  Nature  exists  to  remedy  the 
awful  defect? 

The  same  statement  may  be  made  con- 
cerning the  dog  genus,  and  that  one  final 
and  marvelous  spontaneous  variation  in  a 
single  puppy  which  faintly  pointed  toward 
the  lemur,  and  through  it  toward  the  higher 
monkey  species.  As  such  a puppy  could 
never  have  been  born,  and  such  a pecu- 
liarity could  never  have  occurred  “in  only 
one  place  on  the  earth,”  and  as  no  other 
mother  could  ever  have  produced  it,  con- 
sequently, had  that  particular  puppy  died 
before  maturity  or  the  mother  before  its 
birth,  or  had  any  one  of  the  millions  of  her 
lineal  ancestors,  such  as  jackals,  foxes, 
wolves,  hyenas,  & c.,  died  without  progeny, 
there  never  could  have  been  a monkey  on 
this  earth  any  more  than  an  Israelite  could 
now  exist,  according  to  evolution,  had 
Abraham  died  in  infancy.  Thus  each 
species,  through  which  the  line  of  consan- 
guinity passes,  as  taught  by  Darwin,  adds 
other  countless  millions  of  contingencies 
against  the  existence  of  the  human  race. 
I hen,  beyond  the  jackals,  wolves,  foxes, 
&c.,  the  same  unnumbered  millions  of  con- 
tingencies occur  in  connection  with  each 
one  of  that  particular  puppy’s  more  remote 
ancestors,  such  as  marsupials,  amphibia, 
batrachia,  reptilia,  fishes,  Crustacea,  mol- 
lusca,  &c.,  on  down  toward  the  moneron, 
among  each  one  of  which  the  slightest  cir- 


cumstance would  have  iorever  prevented 
the  existence  of  man  on  the  earth.  Any 
single  link  broken  in  this  inconceivable 
chain  of  heredity, — the  death  of  a certain 
fish  before  it  had  spawned  in  the  far-off 
Devonian  age, — the  failure  of  a certain 
one  of  its  eggs  to  hatch  through  which  the 
line  of  descent  had  to  come, — the  acci- 
dental crushing  of  a single  oyster  or  jan- 
thina  by  the  falling  of  a rock  in  the  almost 
lifeless  Laurentian  period, — would  have 
severed  the  chain  of  man’s  lineal  descent 
en  route  from  the  moneron,  and,  according 
to  these  great  teachers  of  science,  would 
not  only  have  forever  prevented  man’s  ex- 
istence on  earth,  but  would  have  equally 
prevented  the  existence  of  all  other  or- 
ganic beings  above  that  particular  fish  or 
mollusk.  Man’s  destiny  hinged  upon  the 
very  contingencies  here  named,  because  no 
other  fish  and  no  other  mollusk  could  have 
had  all  the  environments  and  surrounding 
influences  to  produce  the  peculiar  varia- 
tions required  to  lead  on  the  lineal  thread 
which  should  ultimately  develop  into  the 
human  race. 

But  I will  even  go  further  in  this  matter 
of  contingencies.  I will  follow  Professor 
Plaeckel  back  to  that  moneron  which  some 
time  in  the  inconceivably  remote  primary 
epoch  was  spontaneously  generated  by  the 
accidental  carbonizing  of  an  accidental 
grain  of  albumen  which  had  by  accident 
collected  through  the  interaction  of  inor- 
ganic forces, — that  moneron  which  he  says 
is  the  “primeval  parent  of  all  other  organ- 
isms,”— that  mo7ieron  which  was  the  re- 
mote ancestor  of  some  other  far-off  mone- 
ron in  the  Carboniferous  age,  which  acci- 
dentally varied  and  then  transmitted  its 
peculiarity,  in  some  manner  to  mortals  un- 
known, to  some  other  moneron  with  addi- 
tional improvements, — that  to  another  and 
so  on  till  a new  and  higher  species  of  ani- 
mals was  developed. 


400 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


It  is  true  Professor  Haeckel  thinks  it 
possible  that  more  than  one  spontaneous 
generation  of  monera  may  have  occurred 
in  different  epochs  of  the  earth’s  history, 
but  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  that  one 
single  moncron  which  was  first  in  the  long 
line  of  man’s  ancestors.  A hundred  thou- 
sand individual  monera  may  have  spon- 
taneously generated  at  different  ages  of  the 
world,  and  thus  have  given  rise  to  as  many 
species  of  monera,  but  out  of  all  these  races 
one  only  can  be  the  primeval  race  through 
whose  chain  of  successive  self  -divisions  man' s 
lineal  descent  runs  back  to  some  one  individ- 
ual moncron  spontaneously  generated!  It  is 
as  impossible  for  two  such  spontaneously 
generated  primeval  monera  to  be  both  the 
progenitors  of  the  line  leading  to  man  as 
for  a child  to  have  two  actual  fathers  or 
two  natal  mothers.  Whatever  the  other 
races  of  monera,  which  may  have  been 
spontaneously  generated,  did  or  may  have 
done,  they  never  did  originate  a line  leading 
toward  a human  race,  since  such  a line  could 
occur  in  its  primeval  spontaneous  start  at  but 
one  time  and  in  but  one  place.  Hence,  we 
reach  the  startling  and  almost  paralyzing 
fact,  that,  had  there  been  a little  stone,  no 
larger  than  a penny,  lying  over  the  exact 
spot  where  that  first  moneron — man’s 
“primeval  parent”- — was  spontaneously 
generating,  no  such  a marvelous  event 
could  have  taken  place.  The  race  of  mon- 
era descending  from  that  single  head  would 
never  have  existed, — those  peculiar  varia- 
tions which  some  one  of  its  millions  of  de- 
scendants must  have  developed,  and  which 
led  on  to  higher  organisms  and  through 
them  to  still  higher,  could  never  have  oc- 
curred,— and  consequently  man  would 
never  have  had  an  existence  on  earth,  nor 
would  any  other  living  creature  higher  than 
these  “homogeneous”  lumps  of  albumen! 


Yes,  this  great  scientist,  who  would  give 
us  a plausible  and  simple  solution  of  the 
mighty  problem  of  man’s  origin,  and  a con- 
sistent, philosophical,  natural  exposition  of 
Creation,  by  linking  Kant’s  Cosmogony 
with  Darwin’s  Natural  Selection,  cemented 
by  spontaneous  generation, — who  would 
brush  aside  from  the  problem  the  inconsis- 
tencies and  superstitious  puerilities  of  mir- 
aculous intervention  on  the  part  of  a myth- 
ical God, — who  would  give  us  a rational 
conception  of  man’s  important  relationship 
to  the  universe  as  the  intellectual  head  of 
all  organic  beings, — tells  us  that  had  a bubble 
of  sea-water  burst  at  one  time  on  the  mar- 
gin of  some  estuary  a thousand  million 
years  ago  (disconnecting  or  disturbing  the 
atoms  of  inorganic  matter  which  had  fallen 
by  chance  together,  and  which  were  acci- 
dentally evolving  from  nothing  a grain  of 
mucus,  which  would,  if  left  undisturbed, 
be  spontaneously  generated  by  an  accident- 
al breath  of  carbon  into  a certain  moneron 
which  was  to  be  the  “ primeval  parent  of 
all  other  organisms,”)  then  man  would 
never  have  lived,  and  there  is  no  power — 
no  intelligence  in  the  universe — capable  of 
correcting  the  terrible  effects  of  the  noise- 
less explosion  of  that  fatal  bubble!  Are 
evolutionists  and  spontaneous  generation- 
ists  prepared  to  accept  the  legitimate  and 
logical  consequences  of  such  an  array  of 
contingencies,  each  one  of  which  suspended 
the  existence  of  the  human  race  by  less 
than  a hair?  To  accept  these  numberless 
millions  of  chances  as  having  actually  ex- 
isted, on  each  one  of  which  the  destiny  of' 
our  race  was  suspended,  yet  without  any 
one  of  them  having  given  way  or  failed  to 
make  the  connection  by  which  man’s  exist- 
ence on  earth  was  secured,  is  a more  stupen- 
dous miracle  a thousand-fold  than  was  ever 
believed  in  by  either  Christian  or  Jew. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  Arguments . 


401 


Chap.  VIII. 


Chapter  VIII. 


EVOLUTION.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS 

EXAMINED. 


Arguments  stated  which  Evolutionists  regard  as  unanswerable. — They  have  never  been  met  or  even 
stated  in  any  review  of  Darwinism. — This  fact  thrown  scathingly  into  the  teeth  of  Opponents  of  the 
system  by  Haeckel  and  other  writers. — The  author  pledges  himself  to  skulk  no  Fact  nor  Argument 
adduced  in  support  of  Evolution. — A Fundamental  Principle  underlying  all  these  Problems  to  be  first 
established.  — An  Absolute  Scientific  Demonstration  that  the  Life  and  Mental  Powers  of  every  living 
creature  constitute  an  Intangible  yet  Substantial  Organism  as  real  as  the  Anatomical  Structure. — Dar- 
win’s Theory  of  Reversionary  Action,  as  one  of  his  strongest  classes  of  Facts,  examined. — A terrible 
Table  of  Figures  arrayed  against  him. — The  Impossibility  of  Reversions  Positively  Demonstrated. — The 
entire  Doctrine  of  Inheritance  misunderstood. — Transmission  even  from  Father  to  Son  through  Corpo- 
real Organism  an  Absolute  Impossibility. — With  the  Failure  of  Darwin’s  Idea  of  Reversions,  Evolution 
necessarily  breaks  down. — Another  Demonstration  that  the  Life  and  Mind  constitute  a Substantial  Or- 
ganism within  the  Corporeal  Structure. — Transmission  and  Inheritance  of  an  Acquired  Ilabit  among 
Animals  explained. — Darwin  implores  an  Explanation,  however  imperfect. — The  Great  Problems  and 
Facts  of  Embryology  examined. — They  are  turned  against  Evolutionists,  and  their  Theory  overthrown 
by  them. — Haeckel’s  Plates,  showing  the  Similar  Appearance  of  all  Embryos,  prove  too  much  for  the 
Theory. — He  destroys  Evolution  by  his  efforts  to  aid  it. — Darwin  proves  that  Man  descended  from 
Lower  Animals  by  the  exact  similarity  of  all  Ovules. — This  Fact  fatally  turned  against  him. — Darwin’s 
Provisional  Hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  and  Gemmules  shown  to  be  Utterly  Impracticable  and  Absurd. — 
The  Author’s  New  Hypothesis,  by  which  the  Problems  of  Embryology,  Reversions,  Monstrosities,  Ru- 
dimentary Organs,  &c.,  may  be  solved. — The  Only  Attempt  at  Explanation  ever  made,  except  by  the 
Theory  of  Descent  and  Transmutation. — The  New  Hypothesis  supported  and  corroborated  by  Darwin’s 
Assumptions.  — The  Author’s  Hypothesis  reasoned  out  and  shown  to  be  a Rational  Solution  of  these 
hitherto  Unexplained  Facts  of  Embryology,  Reversions,  &c. — Summary  of  the  Argument. 


The  preceding  chapters  of  this  book, 
though  apparently  miscellaneous  and 
somewhat  disconnected,  have,  as  will  be 
made  clear  in  the  future,  logically  prepared 
the  way  for  a correct  understanding  and  a 
practical  solution  of  some  of  the  most  pro- 
found and  intricate  problems  developed 
by  Darwin’s  theory  of  descent. 

When  the  writer  declares,  as  he  now 
does,  that  the  strongest  facts  and  argu- 
ments relied  on  by  evolutionists  in  support 
of  the  transmutation  of  species  by  natural 
selection,  have  never  been  presented  by 
any  reviewer  of  Darwinism,  or  even  re- 
ferred to,  much  less  met  and  refuted,  by 


opponents  of  the  theory,  he  but  states 
what  is  well  known  among  evolutionists, 
and  tauntingly  flung  into  the  teeth  of  would- 
be  reviewers  by  advocates  of  the  system. 

Take,  for  example,  the  patent  facts  of 
embryology,  such  as  the  intimate  resem- 
blance of  all  vertebrate  animals  in  their 
early  embryonic  condition,  in  which  the 
embryos  of  the  chicken,  dog,  tortoise, 
orang-outang,  as  well  as  that  of  man,  have 
equally  a caudal  appendage  or  a tail  like 
that  of  the  puppy,  while  in  general  form  at 
a very  early  stage  of  progress  they  can  not 
be  distinguished  from  each  other;  and  also 
the  notorious  fact  of  the  universal  presence 


402 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  the  gill-arches  or  branchise  of  the  fish 
in  the  embryos  of  all  reptiles,  birds,  and 
mammals; — take  the  undisputed  fact  of 
rudimentary  organs  which  are  never  de- 
veloped into  practical  use,  found  in  many 
animals,  such  as  the  incisors  or  upper  front 
teeth  in  the  embryos  of  calves,  which  dis- 
appear before  birth;  and  the  same  thing  in 
the  embryos  of  the  whale  tribe,  where  only 
whalebone  is  seen  in  the  adult;  also, rudi- 
mentary leg-bones  in  the  hinder  portions 
of  the  body  of  the  whale  and  of  the  boa- 
constrictor,  which  are  never  perfected  into 
legs,  and  can  only  mean,  as  evolutionists 
insist,  that  these  animals  came  by  trans- 
mutation from  other  species  having  those 
various  organs  perfect; — take  the  undeni- 
able fact  of  reversions , in  many  species,  to 
the  form,  color,  or  structure  of  others,  such 
as  the  common  dovecote  pigeon  to  the  color 
of  the  wild-rock  pigeon,  the  horse  and  mule 
to  the  stripes  of  the  zebra  orquagga;  and 
the  astonishing  fact  that  in  a few  cases 
women  have  been  found  with  supernumera- 
ry mammae  in  the  inguinal  region,  and  also 
organs  normal  only  to  marsupials,  such  as 
the  double  uterus  of  the  kangaroo  or  opos- 
sum,— proving,  as  Mr.  Darwin  proclaims, 
that  the  human  race  has  descended  from 
these  remote  mammal  ancestors,  and  that 
women  still  retain  sufficient  marsupial 
blood  in  their  veins  to  occasionally  cause 
these  reversions!  These,  in  connection 
with  the  well-known  corroborative  facts 
developed  by  comparative  anatomy,  which 
show  that  all  vertebrate  animals,  from  the 
lowest  fish  to  man,  are  built  up  on  the  same 
general  plan  of  structure;  and  that  those 
nearest  related  in  their  anatomical  chain 
or  type,  such  as  man  and  the  quadrumana 
or  higher  species  of  the  monkey,  can 
scarcely  be  distinguished  from  each  other; 
while  the  paleontologic  records  show  this 
gradual  development  from  the  lower  species 
up  toward  man  by  a corresponding  grada- 


tion in  their  petrified  remains  found  in  the 
geological  strata, — all  combining,  they  tell 
us,  to  confirm  the  theory  of  descent  as 
taught  by  Darwin. 

I here  present  a few  citations  which  bear 
directly  on  the  problems  referred  to.  Prof. 
Ilaeckel,  who  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Darwin 
to  be  one  of  the  highest  authorities  on  the 
subject,  remarks: — 

“All  the  phenomena  of  organic  development . . . 
and  further,  the  whole  history  of  rudimentary  organs 
are  exceedingly  important  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the 
theory  of  descent.  For  by  it  alone  can  they  be  ex- 
plained, whereas  its  opponents  can  not  even  offer  a 
shadow  of  an  explanation  of  them.” — “I  wish  es- 
pecially to  draw  attention  in  Hales  II.  and  III., 
which  represent  embryos  in  all  stages  of  develop- 
ment, and  in  which  we  are  not  able  to  recognize  a 
trace  of  the  full-grown  animal.  . . . Every  one  surely 
knows  the  gill-arches  of  the  fsh.  . . . Now  these 
gill-arches  originally  exist  exactly  the  same  in  man, 
in  dogs,  in  fowls,  and  in  tortoises,  as  well  as  in  all 
other  vertebrate  animals.” 

“Finally, when  comparing  the  embryos  on  Hates 
II.  and  III.,  we  must  not  fail  to  give  attention 
again  to  the  human  tail,  an  organ  which  in  the 
original  condition  man  shares  with  all  other  verte- 
brate animals.  . . . Now  man  in  the  first  months 
of  development  possesses  a real  tail  as  well  as  his 
nearest  kindred,  the  tailless  apes  (orang-outang, 
chimpanzee,  gorilla,)  and  vertebrate  animals  in 
general.” — “In  this  intimate  connection  of  ontogeny 
[resemblance  of  embryos]  and  phylogeny  [common 
descent]  I see  one  of  the  most  important  and  irre- 
futable proofs  of  the  theory  of  descent.  No  one  can 
explain  these  phenomena  unless  he  has  recourse  to 
the  laws  of  inheritance  and  adaptation ; by  these 
alone  a?-e  they  explicable." — “ The  rudimentary  little 
tail  of  man  is  an  irrefutable  proof  of  the  fact  that 
he  is  descended  from  tailed  ancestors." — IIaeckel, 
History  of  Creation, \ ol.  i.,  pp.  289,307,308,310,314. 

I also  quote  a passage  or  two  from  Mr. 
Darwin,  to  the  same  effect : — 

“It  has  been  shown  that  generally  the  embryos 
of  the  most  distinct  species  belonging  to  the  same 
class  are  closely  similar,  but  become  when  fully  de- 
veloped widely  dissimilar.” 

“Man  is  developed  from  an  ovule  about  125th  of 
an  inch  in  diameter, which  differs  in  no  respect  from 
the  ovules  of  other  animals.  The  embryo  itself  at  a 
very  early  period  can  hardly  be  distinguished  from 
that  of  other  members  of  the  vertebrate  kingdom." 


Ciiai*.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


403 


"That  most  wonderful  fact  in  the  whole  round 
of  natural  history,  namely,  the  similarity  of  mem- 
bers of  the  same  great  class  in  their  embryonic  con- 
dition ” &c.  . . . “ It  is  the  consideration  and  ex- 
planation of  such  facts  as  these  which  has  convinced 
me  that  the  theory  of  descent  with  modification  by 
means  of  natural  selection  is  in  the  main  true. 
These  facts  have  as  yet  received  no  explanation  on 
the  theory  of  independent  creations.” 

[ I wonder  if  Mr.  Darwin  will  become  “ convinced ” 
the  other  way  when  all  these  facts  are  taken  from 
him ! — Author .] 

“ No  other  explanation  [than  descent  from  a com- 
mon progenitor]  has  ever  been  given  of  the  marvel- 
ous fact  that  the  embryos  of  the  man,  dog,  seal,  bat, 
reptile,  &c.,  can  at  first  hardly  be  distinguished 
from  each  other.” — Descent  of  Man,  pp.  9,  25. — 
Animals  and  Plants,  vol.  i.,  p.  24. — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  387. 

Now  all  these  things  are  facts  of  science 
admitted  by  physiologists,  naturalists,  and 
anatomists  generally;  and  to  ignore  them, 
as  heretofore  done,  in  reviewing  evolution, 
and  as  intimated  in  the  Introduction,  is  to 
proclaim  their  unanswerable  character.  Is 
it  true,  however,  that  these  facts  unmis- 
takably point  to  transmutation  from  the 
lower  to  the  higher  species? — and  is  it  true 
that  no  other  possible  or  conceivable  hy- 
pothesis can  be  invented  which  will  ration- 
ally solve  them?  If  such  be  the  case,  then 
it  is  indeed  no  longer  of  any  use  to  fight 
against  modern  evolution  ; and  Darwin’s 
hypothesis  of  transmutation  by  means  of 
natural  selection  or  survival  of  the  fittest 
must  be  admitted  as  a well-grounded  scien- 
tific theory.  If  these  various  facts  admit 
of  no  explanation,  save  the  one  given  of 
them  by  Darwin  and  his  coadjutors,  which 
will  harmonize  them  with  the  hypothesis 
of  creation  and  the  consistent  order  of  a 
system  of  Nature  ordained  and  operated 
under  the  supervision  of  an  infinite  and 
allwise  Creator  acting  with  a definite  design 
and  purpose,  then  indeed  must  man  not 
only  have  arisen  out  of  the  monkey,  but 
must  have  even  developed  as  the  lineal 
descendant  of  pouched  mammals  such  as 


the  didelphys  or  wombat,  and  through 
them  from  an  ancient  fish-like  ancestor 
such  as  a ganoid ; and  thence  further  on 
down  his  descent  can  be  legitimately  traced 
from  the  mollusk,  or  from  Haeckel’s 
“primeval  parent  of  all  other  organisms” 
— the  moneron. 

I now  undertake,  as  evolutionists  will 
think,  the  impossible  task  of  showing,  in 
this  and  the  succeeding  chapter,  by  the 
most  unequivocal  scientific  proof  and 
authoritative  citations,  that  Darwin’s  theory 
of  descent  by  transmutation  fails  utterly  to 
give  a satisfactory  or  even  a possible  solu- 
tion of  these  facts  of  science.  I propose 
still  further  to  give  a plausible  and  rational 
solution  of  every  one  of  them  by  an  original 
hypothesis,  independently  of  and  in  direct 
opposition  to  his  theory,  which  not  only 
will  comport  with  known  phenomena  and 
scientific  laws,  but  which  Darwin  will  be 
forced  to  admit  by  a similar  hypothesis  of 
his  own,  having  not  a tithe  of  the  founda- 
tion in  reason  which  mine  will  have. 

Should  these  leading  facts  and  main 
supports  of  this  great  revolutionary  theory, 
which  threatens  to  engulf  religion  and  re- 
construct natural  science,  be  swept  away, 
then  inevitably  the  whole  superstructure 
of  modern  evolution  must  tumble  at  the 
feet  of  its  builder  a shapeless  ruin. 

Preliminary  to  entering  upon  this  dis- 
cussion, or  attempting  a solution  of  the 
problems  just  enumerated,  it  is  essentially 
important,  as  the  fundamental  basis  of  all 
explanations,  that  I lay  down  and  establish 
immovably  the  broad  principle  toward 
which  much  of  my  reasoning  in  the  pre- 
vious chapters  has  directly  pointed,  namely 
— that  the  life  and  mind  of  every  sentient 
being  are  substantial  entities, — that  they 
are  as  real  and  literal  substance  as  are  their 
flesh  and  blood,  though  while  the  latter 
are  corporeal  or  physical  substances  the 
former  are  incorporeal,  and  hence  intan- 


404 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


gible  as  to  our  physical  senses.  The  entire 
three  chapters  on  Light  and  Sound , in  which 
I sought  to  prove  those  and  other  forces 
or  so-called  modes  of  motion  to  be  emana- 
tions of  real  and  substantial  corpuscles, 
were  intended  principally  to  establish  the 
great  truth  that  the  life  and  mind  may  be 
none  the  less  substantial  because  they  are 
beyond  the  grasp  of  our  sensuous  recogni- 
tion. If  those  chapters  really  proved  Sound, 
for  example,  to  consist  of  corpuscular  ema- 
nations, as  I assume  the  reader  now  admits, 
instead  of  it  being  a mere  undulatory  mo- 
tion of  the  air  or  other  conducting  media, 
then  all  difficulty  would  seem  to  have  van- 
ished from  the  problem  of  admitting  that 
life  and  mind  may  be  substantial  entities 
wherever  found,  rather  than  the  mere  mo- 
tions of  the  molecules  of  the  brain  com- 
bined and  operated  in  a “varied  manner,” 
as  assumed  by  Professor  Haeckel. 

While  those  arguments  paved  the  way 
to  this  conclusion,  rendering  the  assump- 
tion of  the  substantial  nature  of  life  and 
mind  probable  and  every  way  reasonable, 
the  arguments  which  are  to  follow  in  these 
chapters  will  demonstrate,  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  doubt,  the  entire  correctness  of 
that  view,  by  showing  in  numerous  in- 
stances that  no  other  possible  hypothesis 
will  explain  many  well-known  phenomena 
and  scientific  facts,  and  thus  a clear  foun- 
dation will  be  established  for  the  solution 
of  all  the  problems  raised  by  Darwin, with- 
out resorting  to  the  impossible  supposition 
of  descent  by  transmutation  from  lower 
animals. 

Reversionary  Action. 

It  matters  little  which  one  of  the  great 
problems  shall  be  taken  up  first,  as  they 
are  all  treated  in  essentially  the  same  man- 
ner by  Darwin  and  lead  to  the  same  result, 
namely,  that  man  has  descended  from  the 
lower  animals — even  the  very  lowest — by 
an  unbroken  line  of  blood  relationship. 


Hence,  I will  come  directly  to  this  puzzling 
question  of  Reversionary  Action,  of  which, 
as  just  remarked,  no  kind  of  solution  has 
ever  been  even  attempted  except  the  one 
given  by  Darwin  of  inheritance  from  an- 
cient ancestors  and  the  retention  of  a suf- 
ficient modicum  of  their  blood  and  corpo- 
real nature  to  cause  reversions  under  spe- 
cial or  peculiar  conditions  of  life.  Speaking 
of  Human  reversions  to  marsupial  organ- 
ism, Mr.  Darwin  remarks : — 

“But  the  principle  of  reversion  by  which  a long 
lost  structure  is  called  back  into  existence , might 
serve  as  the  guide  for  its  full  development  even  after 
the  lapse  of  an  enormous  interval  of  time.” — “These 
several  reversionary  structures , as  well  as  the  strictly 
rudimentary  ones,  reveal  the  descent  of  man  from 
some  lower  form  in  an  unmistakable  manner." — “In 
one  instance  a woman  (the  daughter  of  another  with 
supernumerary  mammae),  had  one  mamma  which 
yielded  milk  developed  in  the  inguinal  region.  This 
latter  case,  when  we  remember  the  position  of  the 
mamma  in  some  of  the  lower  animals  on  both  the 
chest  and  inguinal  region  is  highly  remarkable, and 
leads  to  the  belief  that  in  all  cases  the  additional 
mammae  in  women  are  due  to  reversion.” 

“ This  principle  of  reversion  is  the  most  wonderful 
of  all  the  attributes  of  inheritance.  . . . What  can 
be  more  wonderful  than  that  characters  which  have 
disappeared  during  scores  or  hundreds  or  even 
thousands  of  generations , should  suddenly  rc-appcar 
perfectly  developed?  . . . We  are  led  to  believe,  as 
formerly  explained,  that  every  character  which  oc- 
casionally re-appears  is  present  in  a latent  form  in 
each  generalioti.  . . . In  every  living  creature , we 
may  feel  assured , that  a host  of  lost  characters  lie 
ready  to  be  evolved,  under  proper  conditions.” — 
“ Reversion , in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word, comes 
into  action  so  incessantly,  that  it  evidently  forms 
an  essential  part  of  the  general  law  of  inheritance.” 
— Descent  of  Man,  pp.  39,43. — Animals  and  Plants, 
vol.  ii. , pp.  76,  446,  447,  478. 

Before  suggesting  any  hypothesis  for  the 
solution  of  this  problem  of  so-called  rever- 
sionary action,  I wish  distinctly  to  point 
out  to  the  reader,  as  before  proposed,  the 
utter  impossibility  of  it  being  caused  in  the 
manner  claimed  for  it  by  Darwin — through 
a small  remnant  of  the  blood  or  of  the  phy- 
sical nature  of  a distant  ancestor  retained 


Chap.  VIII. 


405 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


in  the  reverting  structure,  and  then  de- 
veloped into  action  by  some  peculiar  con- 
ditions of  life.  That  the  cause  of  these 
reversions  is  the  retention  of  a small  frac- 
tion of  ancestral  blood,  Mr.  Darwin  clearly 
teaches : — 

“No  doubt  it  is  a very  surprising  fact  that  char- 
acters should  re-appear  after  having  been  lost  for 
many,  probably  hundreds  of  generations.  . . . After 
twelve  generations  the  proportion  of  blood , to  use  a 
common  expression,  from  an  ancestor  is  only  1 in 
2,048.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.  126. 

By  the  law  of  consanguinity,  as  here 
stated  by  Mr.  Darwin,  the  first  descendant 
would  partake  one  half  of  the  blood  or 
physical  nature  of  the  father  and  one  half 
of  that  of  the  mother;  or  the  proportional 
dilution  would  be  as  1 to  2 for  the  first 
generation, — 1 to  4 for  the  second, — 1 to  8 
for  the  third, — and  so  on,  making,  as  Dar- 
win states  it,  1 to  2,048  for  the  twelfth  gen- 
eration, as  any  one  can  see  by  continuously 
doubling  the  figures  for  each  succeeding 
generation. 

But  Darwin  speaks  of  this  dilution  being 
extended  through  “hundreds”  and  even 
“ thousands  ” of  generations,  and  yet  re- 
taining sufficient  heredity  to  cause  rever- 
sions or  to  produce  a monstrous  organ  in 
a woman,  for  example,  normal  only  to  her 
ancient  progenitors  or  ancestral  marsu- 
pials, at  least  a million  generations  distant 
according  to  evolution,  and  which  Darwin 
may  well  call  an  “ enormous  interval  of 
time." 

Now,  I really  wonder  if  Mr.  Darwin 
ever  seriously  thought  of  the  almost  infi- 
nitely minute  portion  of  ancestral  blood 
or  corporeal  nature  which  would  be  thus 
retained  by  a descendant,  even  after  hered- 
ity had  passed  through  but  one  hundred 
generations?  I can  scarcely  believe  it 
possible  that  he  has  ever  even  given  it  a 
passing  reflection,  or  he  surely  would  not 
have  dared  to  venture  such  a bewildering 
and  overwhelming  improbability  as  rever- 


sions through  ancestral  blood  back  to  the 
organs  of  marsupials, — which,  if  really  our 
ancestors  at  all,  can  not  be  less  than  mil- 
lions of  years  distant,  as  estimated  by 
moderate  evolutionists. 

Let  us,  by  means  of  the  following  as- 
tounding table,  carefully  calculated,  take 
a glance  at  the  inconceivable  dilution  of 
ancestral  blood  no  farther  distant  than  the 
one  hundredth  generation  of  human  beings, 
or  extending  no  farther  back  from  the 
present  time  than  to  the  commencement 
of  the  Roman  Empire: — 

12th  generation,  1 to 2,048 

25th  “ 16,777,216 

50th  “ ....  526,952,548,730,112 

75th  “ 17,687,976,686,375,030,226,944 

100th,  1,116,700,203,157,979,981,456,633,757,926 

The  figures  in  the  last  line,  which  are 
almost  enough  to  drive  a mathematician 
wild  even  to  contemplate  them,  only  carry 
the  dilution  of  ancestral  blood  forward 
one  hundred  generations ! Yet  Mr.  Darwin 
holds  that  a fraction,  as  much  less  than 
the  one  here  represented  as  a grain  of 
mustard-seed  is  smaller  than  the  sun, would 
be  all-sufficient  to  overpower  a woman’s 
entire  organization  and  change  her  into 
an  opossum,  or  at  least  to  convert  a part 
of  her  body  into  the  corresponding  part  of 
that  ancient  ancestor  which  lived  at  least 
a million  generations  prior!  A million 
generations ! Can  the  reader  imagine  even 
the  length  of  the  line  of  figures,  carried 
out  according  to  the  foregoing  printed 
table,  which  would  represent  the  millionth 
dilution  of  ancestral  blood?  Such  aline, 
if  printed  as  in  this  table,  would  extend, 
according  to  actual  calculation  and  meas- 
urement, one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
fifty  feet!  Yet,  as  taught  by  Darwin  and 
all  evolutionists,  such  an  infinite  dilution 
of  blood  would  be  sufficient  to  cause  a 
woman’s  body  to  revert  to  the  structure  of 
a marsupial  animal;  and  that,  too,  in  de- 


406 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


fiance  of  her  own  blood  and  that  of  all  her 
human  ancestors! 

One  would  think  that  the  overwhelming 
magnitude  of  the  figures  given  in  this  table, 
though  but  a drop  to  the  ocean  when  com- 
pared to  the  immeasurable  interval  back 
to  the  time  of  marsupials,  supposing  them 
to  have  been  really  our  ancestors,  would 
be  sufficient  to  convince  any  reasonable 
mind  that  some  other  explanation  of  such 
apparent  reversions  than  the  actual  pres- 
ence of  ancestral  blood  must  be  sought. 
That  such  an  inconceivably  diluted  frac- 
tion of  marsupial  blood  could  force  upon 
a woman’s  organization,  in  opposition  to 
her  own  entire  organism,  a structure  only 
normal  to  those  ancient  animals, is  a miracle 
equal  to  that  of  spontaneous  generation, 
and  as  infinitely  absurd  as  this  supposed 
marsupial  blood  is  immeasurably  diluted. 
No  wonder  Darwin  declares  that  “this 
principle  of  reversion  is  the  most  wonderful 
of  all  the  attributes  of  inheritance.”  It  is 
altogether  too  wonderful  to  be  true,  as 
we  shall  soon  see  by  one  of  the  most  un- 
equivocal demonstrations  ever  known  in 
science. 

But  prior  to  this,  I wish  to  note  the  fact 
that  not  only  must  a woman  hold  within 
her  veins,  according  to  this  theory,  an  ef- 
fective fraction  of  marsupial  blood  which 
is  liable  to  be  developed  into  reversionary 
organs  at  any  favorable  juncture  of  con- 
ditions, but  she  must  also  retain  a still 
larger  proportion  of  the  blood  of  all  the 
subsequent  myriads  of  species  through 
which  her  lineal  descent  has  brought  her 
since  she  shed  her  marsupium!  These 
species  and  varieties  and  genera  and  fami- 
lies, living  and  extinct,  from  the  time  the 
human  line  branched  off  from  the  kanga- 
roo, Darwin  estimates  at  numberless  thou- 
sands; and  hence  a woman  should  be 
more  liable  to  reversions  to  the  peculiar 
structures  of  the  wolf,  jackal,  hyena,  fox, 


dog,  lemur,  &c.,  than  to  that  of  the  mar- 
supial prototype  of  these  subsequently  de- 
veloped species  running  along  the  line  of 
her  descent.  Yet  we  do  not  hear  of  a 
single  reversion  in  woman  to  the  organs 
of  any  of  her  nearer  relatives  in  this  lineal 
chain,  unless  the  supernumerary  mammae 
should  be  an  exception. 

I now  assert,  and  particularly  invite  the 
attention  of  Darwin  and  Huxley,  that  so 
far  from  there  being  the  smallest  conceiv- 
able fraction  of  ancestral  blood  or  corpo- 
real substance  of  any  kind  running  in  our 
veins  handed  down  from  marsupials  or 
from  human  ancestors  even  a hundred 
generations  back,  which,  by  the  remotest 
possibility,  could  cause  reversions,  there  is 
not  one  particle  of  blood  or  other  corporeal 
substance  in  any  man  living  which  existed 
in  the  body  either  of  his  father  or  mother; 
and  hence  I am  now  prepared  to  show,  by 
that  unequivocal  demonstration  just  prom- 
ised, that  this  whole  question  of  inheritance 
is  completely  misapprehended,  atid  that 
physiologists  who  suppose  transmitted  charac- 
ters and  peculiar  diseases  or  structural  de- 
formities to  be  physical  transmissions  handed 
down  and  continued  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration by  atavism  as  it  is  taught , or  through 
the  means  of  corporeal  blood  or  organism, 
are  laboring  wider  a universal  and  monstrous 
misconception. 

There  is  no  man  living  who  has  arrived 
at  maturity  who  has  at  this  time  a single 
atom  of  the  blood  or  physical  substance 
remaining  in  his  body  which  he  possessed 
when  he  was  a child,  let  alone  that  of  his 
ancestors,  near  or  remote.  Upon  this  all 
authorities  agree.  Ancient  philosophers 
maintained  that  a complete  metamorphosis 
takes  place  in  our  entire  bodies  at  least 
once  in  seven  years,  and  that  a man 
twenty-one  years  old  has  had  his  whole 
substance — blood,  bone,  muscle,  &c. — dis- 
placed and  substituted  by  other  corporeal 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


407 


atoms  taken  up  from  organic  and  inor- 
ganic nature  at  least  three  times  since  his 
birth. 

I will  not  ask  the  reader  to  take  this  al- 
most universally  understood  truth  on  my 
bare  assertion,  but  will  give  authority  which 
evolutionists  will  hardly  question.  Prof. 
Huxley  says: — 

“So  constant  and  universal  is  this  absorption, 
waste,  and  reproduction,  that  it  may  be  said  with 
perfect  certainty  that  there  is  left  in  no  one  of  our 
bodies  at  the  present  moment  a millionth  part  of  the 
matter  of  which  they  were  originally  formed.” — 
Lectures  on  The  Origin  oj  Species,  p.  28. 

He  also  says: — 

“ Bone  once  formed  does  not  remain  during  life , 
but  is  constantly  disappearing  and  being  replaced in 
all  its  parts.” — Elementary  Physiology,  p.  264. 

Dr.  Flint  remarks : — 

“It  is  known  that  the  organic  principles  of  the 
body  which  form  the  basis  of  all  tissues  and  organs, 
are  continually  undergoing  change  as  a condition  of 
existence;  that  they  do  not  unite  with  any  substance 
in  definite  chemical  proportions;  but  their  particles, 
after  a certain  period  of  existence,  degenerate  into 
excrementitious  substances.” — Physiology  of  Man, 
vol.  i.,  p.  474. 

Dr.  Dunglison  adds  his  testimony,  as 
follows : — 

“The  human  body, from  the  moment  of  its  form- 
ation to  the  cessation  of  existence,  is  undergoing 
constant  decay  and  renovation — decomposition  and 
composition  ; — so  that  at  no  two  periods  can  it  be 
said  to  have  exactly  the  same  constituents.  . . . 
Setting  aside  the  erroneous  pathological  notions 
that  assign  to  the  blood  what  properly  belongs  to 
cell  life  in  the  system  of  nutrition,  how  can  we 
suppose  a taint  to  continue  for  years  or  even  entire 
generations  in  a fluid  which  is  perpetually  under- 
going mutation,  and  at  any  distant  interval  can  not 
be  presumed  to  have  one  of  its  quondam  particles  re- 
maining.”— Human  Physiology,  pp.  73,  450. 

I could,  were  I disposed  to  occupy  the 
space,  extend  these  citations  to  any  num- 
ber; but  these  will  suffice  to  show  that 
physiologists  who  teach  that  inherited 
characters  or  diseases  are  conveyed  through 
blood  and  corporeal  structure  from  one 


generation  to  another  do  so  in  the  face 
and  eyes  of  the  universally  admitted  fact 
that  not  one  particle  of  the  body  of  any 
man  or  woman  which  he  or  she  had  in 
childhood  continues  to  maturity,  which 
shows  the  utter  impossibility  of  atavism 
based  on  corporeal  transmissions!  Hence, 
the  almost  infinite  absurdity  of  Darwin's 
hypothesis  that  reversions  bring  up  “long 
lost  organs,”  through  the  supposed  remnant 
of  the  blood  of  remote  ancestors  continu- 
ing in  our  veins.  How,  then,  in  the  name 
of  logic  and  science,  we  may  crushingly 
ask  Darwin,  is  he  to  explain  these  supposed 
reversions  in  women  to  the  organs  of  mar- 
supials, or  refer  their  “supernumerary  mam- 
ms,”  developed  in  the  inguinal  region,  to 
those  of  the  dog  or  jackal,  when  about 
every  seven  years  from  that  remote  period 
to  the  present  time  each  individual  in  the 
line  of  descent  has  changed  its  entire  body, 
breaking  down  the  lineal  bridge  a million 
times  and  in  a million  places  over  which 
descent  has  had  to  travel  ? 

I therefore  aver  that  in  view  of  this  un- 
answerable fact  of  all  the  physical  ingre- 
dients of  man’s  body  being  displaced  and 
substituted  many  times  during  each  mature 
human  life,  and  in  view  of  the  table  just 
given  showing  the  inconceivable  dilution 
of  ancestral  blood  after  only  one  hundred 
generations,  if  such  blood  continues  at  all, 
it  is  utterly  impossible  for  any  sane  mind 
to  believe  in  Darwin’s  theory  of  reversions 
to  marsupial  organism.  And  hence  it  fol- 
lows that  this  great  and  conclusive  fact  in 
support  of  Darwinism  is  utterly  broken 
down,  and  his  theory,  so  far  as  it  is  con- 
cerned, completely  driven  to  the  wall.  Is 
not  this  an  irresistible  conclusion?  If  so, 
then  here  is  one  of  its  most  important  re- 
presentative facts  which  evolution  can  not 
explain,  and  with  which  it  is  entirely  in- 
consistent; and  hence  the  whole  theory 
“falls  to  the  ground,”  according  to  the  rule 


408 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  logic  laid  down  by  Professor  Huxley 
himself,  as  quoted  at  the  foot  of  page  325, 
which  the  reader  will  turn  to  and  read. 

Thus,  by  the  overthrow  of  this  main  sup- 
port of  the  transmutation  of  the  human 
race  from  some  ancient  marsupial  form, 
Darwinism  completely  breaks  down  (it 
matters  not  whether  I succeed  in  satisfac- 
torily explaining  these  so-called  “ rever- 
sions” or  not),  for  Mr.  Darwin  has  in  many 
places  in  his  various  works  distinctly 
claimed  this  problem  of  reversionary  action 
as  among  his  very  strongest  arguments  in 
support  of  the  hypothesis  of  man’s  descent 
by  transmutation  from  lower  animals,  and 
one  of  the  facts  which  convinced  him  of  its 
truth. 

Right  here,  then,  comes  the  scientific 
demonstration  that  life  and  mental  powers 
are  real  and  substantial  entities,  or  other- 
wise there  is  nothing  through  which  the 
transmission  of  characters  or  diseases  or 
peculiarities  can  find  conduction  from  gen- 
eration to  generation!  The  mental  and 
vital  organism  (which  exists  in  addition  to 
the  corporeal  structure),  being  incorporeal, 
is  all  there  is  about  a man  or  a lower  ani- 
mal which  is  not  liable  to  change  and  sub- 
stitution, and  is, therefore,  all  there  is  which 
possesses  an  identity  of  person  or  being; 
and  hence  it  is  the  intimate  connection  ex- 
isting between  this  incorporeal  organism 
(which  is  at  the  same  time  substantial  and 
unchangeable)  and  the  corporeal  organism 
(which  is  material  and  changeable)  which 
causes  atavism,  and  through  which  inherit- 
ed transmission  occurs  either  among  the 
human  or  lower  species. 

Can  there  be  a stronger  proof  furnished 
on  any  single  scientific  proposition  than 
this  fact  here  established  that  there  must 
be  some  invisible  incorporeal  and  intangi- 
ble substance,  not  liable  to  mutation  and 
substitution,  through  which  inheritance 
from  parent  to  offspring  must  be  con- 


ducted? No  other  rational  conclusion  is 
conceivable,  since  all  corporeal  or  physical 
connection  is  severed  between  them  within 
seven  years  after  the  birth  of  the  child, 
thus  effectually  breaking  the  lineal  chain 
between  such  parent  and  the  next  genera- 
tion. Without  the  presence  of  such  an 
unchangeable  and  incorporeal  organism 
actually  existing  in  every  living  creature, 
no  inheritance  of  parental  character  or 
resemblance  could  continue  in  a child  at 
farthest  longer  than  seven  years  afterbirth; 
for  the  moment  the  physical  organism  had 
been  substituted  by  new  materials  all  in- 
herited relationship  would  cease  and  all 
transmitted  parental  characteristics  would 
vanish. 

I repeat  it,  then,  that  we  have  here  a 
direct  scientific  proof  of  the  position  I la- 
bored so  long  to  establish  by  indirection 
and  analogy  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  this 
work.  I there  assumed  that  if  so  many  in- 
tangible so-called  forces  and  modes  of  mo- 
tion were  really  and  demonstrably  substan- 
tial entities,  though  incorporeal,  that  it  was 
but  logical  to  infer  that  life,  instinct,  and 
spirit  were  equally  substantial.  But  now 
for  the  first  time  we  have  the  direct  scien- 
tific proof  that  there  must  exist  in  every 
sentient  being  a substantial  vital  and  men- 
tal organism,  in  addition  to  its  corporeal 
structure,  through  which  inherited  trans- 
missions descend  from  father  to  child,  and 
by  atavism  from  grandfather  to  grand- 
child; and  thus  gradually  I am  laying  the 
foundation  for  the  new  hypothesis  to  ra- 
tionally solve  Darwin’s  problems, — which, 
as  we  see,  are  wholly  inexplicable  by  his 
own  theory  of  physical  descent. 

But  right  here  is  another  argument  even 
more  conclusive,  if  anything,  than  the  pre- 
ceding, that  the  life  and  mind  arc  the  real, 
intrinsic,  and  principal  substance  of  every 
living  creature;  and  by  mind,  in  the  lower 
animals,  I mean  that  instinct  which  takes 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


409 


the  place  of  reason  in  man.  It  therefore 
must  not  be  supposed  because  I place  man 
and  the  lower  animals  on  a level  in  regard 
to  each  possessing  a dual  nature,  and  each 
having  within  the  corporeal  structure  a 
vital  and  mental  organism,  that  I suppose 
such  lower  beings  equally  entitled  to  im- 
mortality, or  life  hereafter.  A just,  and, 
as  I believe,  a true  distinction  will  be 
marked  out  in  a future  chapter  between 
man  and  the  lower  animals ; and  what  I 
regard  as  the  only  true  solution  will  be 
given  of  this  greatest  of  all  psychical  prob- 
lems, why  man  shall  live  eternally  and 
why  an  intelligent  animal  like  a dog  or  a 
horse  can  not  so  live,  although  like  man 
it  possesses  a substantial  incorporeal  vital 
and  mental  structure.  I therefore  merely 
throw  in  this  explanatory  remark,  lest  I 
should  be  misapprehended  in  my  frequent 
allusions  to  the  vital  and  mental  organisms 
of  lower  animals. 

I now  state  but  a truism,  universally 
recognized  and  admitted,  when  I assert 
that  offspring  as  a general  rule  partake 
equally  the  likeness,  character,  and  quali- 
ties of  both  father  and  mother,  while  I 
emphatically  deny  that  such  transmission 
of  likeness  or  character  is  caused  by  or 
comes  at  all  or  in  the  slightest  degree  from 
the  physical  bodies  or  corporeal  organisms 
of  such  father  and  mother,  but  exclusively 
from  the  vital  and  mental  organism  which 
pervades  and  animates  the  corporeal  struc- 
ture, since  it  is  a fact  which  physiologists 
will  admit  that  more  than  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  thousandths  of  the  child’s 
physical  or  corporeal  organism  is  derived 
from  the  mother!  Perhaps  it  might  be 
safely  asserted  that  the  germinal  or  fecund- 
ating impulse  really  supplies  nothing  to 
the  building  up  of  the  child’s  body.  Some 
authors  so  believe ; but  I do  not  need  the 
admission.  The  fact  that  the  child’s  body 
is  almost  wholly  derived  from  the  mother’s 


organism,  while  it  partakes  corporeally  as 
well  as  mentally  as  much  of  the  father’s 
likeness  and  characteristics  as  of  the 
mother’s  is  an  unanswerable  proof  that 
even  the  infant,  without  waiting  seven 
years  for  its  substance  to  be  supplanted 
by  new  materials,  does  not  inherit  its  spe- 
cific structure  or  family  characteristics  at 
all  through  the  corporeal  organization  of 
either  father  or  mother,  but  exclusively 
from  their  incorporeal  mental  and  vital 
being! 

It  therefore  amounts  to  another  absolute 
scientific  demonstration  that  inheritance  of 
any  quality  or  character, whether  among  hu- 
man beings  or  the  lower  animals — whether 
the  quality  or  peculiarity  relates  to  the 
mental  powers  or  is  wholly  physical  and 
attaches  entirely  to  the  corporeal  struc- 
ture— comes  exclusively  through  and  is 
derived  wholly  from  the  intangible  and 
incorporeal  vital  and  mental  organism  of 
the  two  parent  forms.  Evolutionists  can 
not  evade  or  even  weaken  the  force  of  this 
overwhelming  conclusion.  If  physical  or- 
ganism is  all  there  is  about  us  of  a sub- 
stantial nature,  as  Haeckel,  Darwin,  and 
Huxley  all  teach,  and  if  the  mind  and  life 
are  nothing  but  a complicated  motion  of 
the  physical  molecules  arranged  in  a “va- 
ried manner,”  having  no  organic  or  sub- 
stantial character,  then  it  would  assuredly 
follow,  on  absolute  scientific  principles, 
that,  as  the  child  had  derived  but  a thou- 
sandth part  of  its  corporeal  structure  from 
the  father,  it  should  exhibit  but  a thou- 
sandth part  of  his  likeness  or  character- 
istics! But  since  the  father  transfers  as 
much  of  his  nature  and  likeness  to  the 
child,  through  his  vital  organic  structure, 
as  does  the  mother,  though  she  furnishes 
about  all  of  the  corporeal,  my  foundation 
is  firmly  laid  in  the  immutable  mental  and 
vital  organism  of  every  living  creature,  and 
must  hereafter  remain  an  established  and 


4io 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


demonstrated  fact  against  which  the  mate- 
rialistic waves  of  evolution  will  beat  in 
vain ! 

The  great  mind  of  Darwin,  when  con- 
templating the  astonishing  fact  that  an  in- 
stinct, and  even  a cultivated  habit,  in  a 
dog  or  horse,  though  not  natural  to  the 
species,  is  inherited  by  its  offspring,  which 
will  repeat  the  habit  without  being  taught, 
becomes  almost  paralyzed  with  bewilder- 
ment, and  he  exclaims — “Even  an  imper- 
fect answer  to  this  question  would  be  satis- 
factory.”  But  I will  quote  him  in  full, and 
then  give  him  a perfect  answer: — 

“ How,  again,  can  we  explain  to  ourselves  the 
inherited  effects  of  the  use  or  disuse  of  particular 
organs?  The  domesticated  duck  flies  less  and  walks 
more  than  the  wild  duck,  and  its  limb-bones  have 
become  in  a corresponding  manner  diminished  and 
increased  in  comparison  with  those  of  the  wild  duck. 
A horse  is  trained  to  certain  paces,  and  the  colt  in- 
herits similar  consensual  movements.  The  domes- 
ticated rabbit  becomes  tame  from  close  confine- 
ment ; the  dog  intelligent  from  associating  with 
man  ; the  retriever  is  taught  to  fetch  and  carry;  and 
these  mental  endowments  and  bodily  powers  are  all 
inherited.  Nothing  in  the  whole  circuit  of  physi- 
ology is  more  wonderful.  How  can  the  use  or  disuse 
of  a particular  limb  or  of  the  brain  affect  a small 
aggregate  of  reproductive  cells,  seated  in  a distant 
part  of  the  body,  in  such  a manner  that  the  being 
developed  from  these  cells  inherits  the  characters  of 
either  one  or  both  parents?  Even  an  imperfect  an- 
swer to  this  question  would  be  satisfactory." — Dar- 
win, Animals  and  Plants , vol.  ii. , p.  445. 

Had  Darwin’s  mind  ever  been  so  fortu- 
nate as  to  delve  down  into  the  great  cen- 
tral truth  I have  just  been  elaborating, 
that  the  life  and  mental  powers  of  every 
living  creature  constitute  a perfect  incor- 
poreal yet  substantial  organism,  as  real  as 
the  one  composed  of  blood,  bone,  and 
muscle,  and  that  inheritance  from  the  pa- 
rents by  the  offspring  comes  solely  through 
such  intangible  entity,  he  never  would 
have  so  puzzled  his  brain  over  this  prob- 
lem of  the  transmission  of  an  instinct  or 
an  acquired  habit,  and  would  never  have 


begged  for  even  an  “ imperfect  answer  to 
this  question.”  He  here  has  a perfect  an- 
swer. I wonder  if  he  will  have  the  candor 
and  magnanimity  to  acknowledge  it!  If 
he  has  no  difficulty  in  understanding  how 
two  fine-wool  merinos,  male  and  female, 
should  transmit  their  peculiar  physical 
characteristics  to  the  lamb,  but  accepts  it 
as  a simple  and  natural  fact,  then,  when- 
ever he  grasps  the  true  and  broad  idea 
that  these  merino  parents  transmitted  this 
characteristic  of  fine  wool  to  their  offspring 
exclusively  through  their  mental  and  vital 
structures,  and  that  their  merely  corporeal 
organisms  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  transmission  except  as  being  the  physi- 
cal media  through  which  the  peculiarity 
was  conveyed,  he  will  then  have  not  the 
slightest  difficulty  in  understanding  and 
accepting  the  equally  simple  and  beautiful 
fact  that  the  retriever  after  being  taught 
to  fetch  and  carry,  transmits  this  mental 
habit  to  the  pup  through  his  own  mental 
and  vital  organism  so  effectually  that  the 
offspring  will  practise  the  same  thing  with- 
out being  taught.  Without  the  presence 
of  this  substantial  mental  and  vital  organ- 
ism all  such  facts  are  wholly  and  abso- 
lutely inexplicable. 

Right  here,  then,  at  the  very  threshold 
of  my  arguments  by  which  I have  proposed 
to  overthrow  evolution,  and  while  thus  es- 
tablishing the  immovable  foundation  of 
my  future  exposition  of  the  theory,  I have 
incidentally  furnished  a simple  and  beau- 
tiful solution  of  one  of  the  most  profound 
problems  which  Mr.  Darwin  finds  mixed 
up  with  the  complex  subject  of  inheritance, 
and  one  so  bewildering  that  he  prays  for 
some  solution,  he  cares  not  how  “imper- 
fect,” agreeing  in  advance  to  be  satisfied 
with  it  rather  than  to  depend  on  the 
wretched  consolation  which  his  own  cor- 
poreal theory  of  inherited  transmissions 
affords.  No  wonder  he  implores  assist* 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


4i  i 


ance,  since  no  physical  theory  of  inherit- 
ance can  aid  him.  I have  here  given  it  to 
him  without  money  and  without  price. 
Will  he  accept  it?  We  shall  see. 

Let  the  reader  not  forget,  then,  what  has 
been  accomplished  in  the  arguments  just 
preceding.  It  has  been  shown  that  while 
all  organic  beings  are  changed  in  all  their 
parts,  and  their  physical  atoms  substituted 
frequently  by  others  during  life,  thus  pre- 
venting all  corporeal  transmission  what- 
ever, yet  inheritance  does  take  place,  ab- 
solutely proving  the  presence  in  each  being 
of  an  incorporeal  self,  or  substantial  organ- 
ism. It  has  further  been  proved  that  while 
the  father  equally  transmits  his  likeness 
and  character  to  his  child  the  mother  fur- 
nishes nearly  all  of  its  physical  organism, 
showing  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction 
that  no  inheritance  comes  through  corpo- 
real structure,  and  at  the  same  time  de- 
monstrating that  each  being  possesses  a 
substantial  organism  within  the  physical, 
which  is  incorporeal  and  intangible.  So 
long  as  these  two  annihilating  propositions 
remain  unrefuted,  just  so  long  will  evolu- 
tion remain  with  its  entire  foundation  of 
physical  inheritance  demolished. 

If  the  physical  or  corporeal  organism  is 
all  there  is  about  a living  creature  con- 
cerned in  the  phenomena  of  inheritance 
and  the  transmission  of  characters,  as  held 
by  all  evolutionists,  then  surely  it  must  be 
clear  to  the  reader,  if  there  is  no  continuity 
of  corporeal  structure  from  one  generation 
to  another,  that  physical  transmissions  are 
impossible  in  the  very  nature  of  things; 
and  hence  the  whole  fabric  of  inheritance 
and  descent  is  annihilated.  If  nothing 
but  corporeal  structure  constitutes  the  me- 
dium for  inherited  transmissions,  then  it 
must  follow,  if  a lamb  has  a fine-wool  father 
and  a coarse-wool  mother,  not  a thread  of 
its  wool  would  be  sufficiently  changed  from 
the  coarse  fiber  of  its  mother  to  be  detected 


under  microscopic  power,  since  but  a thou- 
sandth part,  approximately,  of  its  organic 
nature  could  have  come  from  the  father. 
Here,  then,  by  evolutionists  basing  their 
theory  of  descent  on  transmissions  through 
physical  organism  alone,  thus  ignoring  en- 
tirely any  other  substantial  structure  as 
part  of  a living  creature,  the  foundation  of 
the  hypothesis  of  natural  selection  is  swept 
away.  Hence,  if  I were  disposed  to  stop 
right  here  and  not  write  another  paragraph 
against  evolution,  the  theory  of  descent  as 
based  on  transmission  alone  through  cor- 
poreal structure  could  never  recover  from 
the  force  of  this  single  blow;  for  what  is 
evolution  without  inherited  transmissions? 
and  how  is  inheritance  possible  when  the 
very  channel  through  which  it  passes  is 
displaced  in  all  its  parts  and  substituted  by 
new  ingredients  several  times  during  each 
life?  Modern  evolution  knows  no  medium 
through  which  characters  can  be  trans- 
mitted save  the  physical  structure,  which 
I have  shown  by  the  best  authority  has  no 
continuity  from  one  generation  to  another. 
Therefore,  as  inheritance  is  taken  away 
from  the  theory,  the  entire  superstructure 
of  evolution  falls  hopelessly  to  the  ground. 
No  escape  is  possible  except  by  adopting 
my  view, that  within  each  physical  structure 
there  exists  also  a substantial  vital  and 
mental  organism. 

But  is  there  a rational  or  supposable  hy- 
pothesis by  which  to  account  for  so-called 
reversions  in  man  to  the  organs  or  charac- 
ters of  lower  animals,  as  described  by  Mr. 
Darwin?  Is  there  any  supposable  theory 
for  explaining  the  gills  of  fish  and  the  pres- 
ence of  a caudal  appendage  in  the  human 
embryo  as  well  as  in  those  of  all  vertebrate 
animals?  Is  it  possible  to  account  for  the 
occurrence  of  a monstrosity  in  one  species 
resembling  some  other  specific  form,  or  to 
explain  satisfactorily  deformities  in  chil- 
dren resulting  from  the  mental  impressions 


412 


The  Pvoblem  of  Human  Life. 


of  the  mother?  That  such  phenomena  do 
not  result  from  physical  or  corporeal  causes, 
such  as  inherited  transmissions  linking 
species  together,  I shall  regard  as  already 
clearly  demonstrated  so  far  as  “reversions” 
are  concerned.  That  there  is  a vital  and 
mental  organism  within  and  inclosed  by 
the  physical  structure  of  every  organic  be- 
ing I shall  also  consider  as  equally  demon- 
strated, and  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt 
by  an  unbiassed  mind.  And,  finally,  I shall 
maintain  that  to  this  intangible  and  incor- 
poreal vital  and  mental  organism  we  are 
to  look  for  all  the  phenomena  of  inherit- 
ance, growth,  variation,  embryology,  &’c. 

Yet,  properly,  before  presenting  the  hy- 
pothesis which  I have  invented  for  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  reversionary 
action,  I ought  to  examine  also  the  sur- 
prising facts  of  embryology,  and  show,  as 
I have  already  intimated,  that  so  far  from 
aiding  evolution  they  are  absolutely  against 
the  theory,  even  should  I be  unable  to  ex- 
plain their  true  cause.  These  remarkable 
appearances  in  the  embryos  of  all  verte- 
brate animals  so  confidently  relied  on  by 
Mr.  Darwin  and  all  his  followers  as  direct 
proof  of  evolution,  really,  in  one  sense,  are 
as  much  reversions,  so  called,  as  are  the 
recurrence  of  supernumerary  mammae, and 
must  therefore  come  under  the  same  gen- 
eral objections, and  be  ultimately  explained 
by  the  same  hypothesis.  I shall  therefore 
come  directly  to  the  discussion  of 
Embryology. 

That  the  presence  of  branchiae  and  a 
caudal  organ  in  the  human  embryo  at  an 
early  stage  of  progress  can  not  be  caused 
by  human  descent  and  corporeal  inherit- 
ance from  fishes  and  tortoises  has  been 
already  scientifically  demonstrated,  since, 
as  just  remarked,  these  embryonic  appear- 
ances belong  in  the  same  class  of  phe- 
nomena as  so-called  reversions,  and  must 
stand  or  fall  by  the  same  philosophical 


evidence.  If  the  gills  of  fishes  or  the  tails 
of  tortoises  really  do  show  themselves  in 
the  embryos  of  all  mammals, from  the  mouse 
up  to  man,  through  the  law  of  physical  in- 
heritance from  those  ancient  progenitors, 
as  Darwin  and  all  evolution  writers  main- 
tain, then  it  would  undeniably  follow  that 
a small  remnant  of  this  ancestral  blood  and 
corporeal  nature  from  the  fish  and  tortoise 
must  still  remain  in  the  human  mother  in 
order  to  be  thus  transmitted  by  her  organ- 
ism to  the  embryonic  structure  of  the  in- 
fant. For  an  evolutionist  to  even  attempt 
an  evasion  of  this  fundamental  principle 
of  his  theory  would  be  to  abandon  evolu- 
tion and  the  idea  of  physical  descent  alto- 
gether. 

Hence,  this  entire  embryologic  argu- 
ment, of  which  evolutionists  so  persistently 
and  triumphantly  remind  their  opponents, 
falls  hopelessly  to  the  ground  by  the  very 
facts  and  considerations  just  brought  to 
bear  on  the  subject  of  reversions.  I need 
only  refer  the  reader  back  to  that  terrible 
and  fatal  line  of  figures  showing  the  almost 
infinite  dilution  of  ancestral  blood  after 
only  one  hundred  generations  have  passed; 
that  is,  supposing  the  blood  or  physical 
nature  of  an  ancestor  to  descend  at  all  from 
one  generation  to  another, which  was  clear- 
ly demonstrated  could  not  be  the  case.  If 
that  line  of  figures  should  be  continuously 
multiplied  till  it  would  represent  the  num- 
ber of  generations  back  to  the  Devonian 
fish,  as  estimated  by  moderate  evolutionists, 
there  would  be  an  unbroken  string  of  nu- 
merals, as  closely  printed  as  in  the  table, 
over  one  hundred  miles  long;  and  this  would 
represent  the  dilution  of  fish-blood  in  the 
veins  of  a mother  which  impresses  the  form 
of  branchice  on  the  embryonic  infant!  I 
assert,  without  intending  to  impugn  any 
man’s  honesty,  that  no  sensible  evolutionist 
does  or  can  believe  it. 

But  aside  from  the  impossibility  of  this 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — -Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


4i3 


inconceivably  diluted  atom  of  ancestral 
blood  affecting  such  a result  in  opposition 
to  the  mother’s  organism  and  in  defiance 
of  the  blood  of  all  her  human  ancestors,  it 
remains  an  incontrovertible  fact,  as  proved, 
that  there  is  no  such  a thing  as  the  trans- 
mission of  physical  blood  or  structure  of 
any  kind,  even  for  a single  generation,  since 
all  the  corporeal  atoms  of  every  nature 
composing  a child’s  body  are  displaced 
and  substituted  by  new  ingredients  several 
times  before  that  child  reaches  maturity. 
Hence,  as  so  unanswerably  shown,  not  an 
atom  of  ancestral  blood  or  physical  struc- 
ture can  reach  even  as  far  as  to  the  first 
grandchild.  How,  then,  in  the  name  of 
science  and  common  sense,  can  the  prints 
of  gills  and  tails  be  conveyed  to  embryonic 
infants  through  the  unbroken  transmission 
of  blood  from  the  tortoise  and  fish?  To 
suppose  that  the  reader  does  not  see  and 
appreciate  the  force  of  this  crushing  argu- 
ment would  be  to  cast  a slur  upon  his  in- 
telligence. 

It  therefore  matters  nothing, as  remarked 
about  reversions,  whether  I am  able  or  not 
to  offer  a plausible  explanation  of  these 
embryonic  problems,  or,  in  fact,  any  ex- 
planation at  all,  they  clearly  have  nothing 
to  do  with  evolution.  Even  if  I should 
now  admit  them  among  the  unsolvable 
mysteries  of  which  every  page  of  Nature 
is  so  prolific,  it  would  nevertheless  remain 
an  established  fact  that  Darwin’s  theory 
fails  utterly  to  account  for  them.  If  they 
are  never  to  be  explained,  still  this  fact  is 
clearly  demonstrated,  that  they  do  not  and 
can  not  come  by  descent  from  the  tortoise 
and  fish. 

It  must  be  remembered  as  an  undisputed 
fact  that  inheritance,  with  Darwin,  Huxley, 
Haeckel,  and  all  evolutionists,  signifies 
only  the  transmission  of  characters  or  pe- 
culiarities, through  the  physical  blood  and 
structure  of  organic  beings,  handed  down 


from  generation  to  generation.  Not  one 
of  these  writers  has  ever  had  the  first 
glimmer,  as  their  works  indicate,  of  this 
beautiful  and  grand  idea  of  an  incorporeal 
yet  substantial  vital  and  mental  organism 
existing  within  and  represented  by  the 
physical  structure.  Hence,  whatever  use 
such  a sublime  view  of  organic  life  might 
be  to  them  to  help  out  their  broken-down 
theory  of  physical  inheritance,  they  have 
forever  estopped  themselves  from  employ- 
ing it  by  their  utter  repudiation  of  life  and 
mind  as  anything  except  the  mere  motions 
of  commingling  organic  molecules. 

I may  also  be  permitted  to  add,  as  cau- 
tiously as  maybe, that  the  true  reason  why 
these  great  problems  raised  by  Darwin, 
such  as  reversions,  embryonic  resemblance, 
rudimentary  organs, &c.,  have  never  before 
been  wrenched  from  the  grasp  of  evolution 
and  hurled  with  fatal  effect  against  the 
theory,  is  because  no  reviewer  of  the  theory 
of  descent  has  seemed  to  catch  this  funda- 
mental principle  of  being,  that  each  living 
creature  has  a dual  organism  or  two  distinct 
structures  interblended — one  corporeal 
and  subject  to  constant  mutation,  while 
the  other  is  incorporeal,  not  liable  to  mu- 
tation,and  hence  the  only  part  about  every 
living  creature  constituting  the  essential 
identity  of  its  being.  I here  assert  con- 
fidently that  no  man  can  answer  these 
fundamental  arguments  of  evolution  or 
solve  the  otherwise  inexplicable  mysteries 
involved  in  inherited  transmissions,  if  this 
broad  principle  of  a substantial  vital  and 
mental  organism  be  ignored.  Hence,  Dar- 
win’s principal  scientific  facts  have  never 
been  met. 

Although  the  arguments  just  advanced 
completely  take  embryology  outside  the 
pale  of  evolution,  I do  not  propose  to  stop 
here  with  these  facts,  which  Mr.  Darwin 
says  were  among  the  main  reasons  which 
“convinced”  him  of  the  truth  of  evolution, 


4T4 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  which  Professor  Haeckel,  his  great 
German  apostle  and  coadjutor, flings  boast- 
fully at  all  opponents  of  the  theory  of  de- 
scent as  beyond  their  power  to  jostle,  and 
in  which  he  declares,  “/  see  one  of  the  most 
important  dnd  irrefutable  proofs  of  the  theory 
of  descent.  No  one  can  explain  these  pheno- 
mena unless  he  has  recourse  to  the  laws  of 
inheritance  and  adaptation;  by  these  alone  arc 
they  explicable .”  (See  page  402.) 

Then,  to  show  how  conclusive  is  this 
similar  appearance  of  the  human  and  lower 
forms  in  their  early  embryonic  condition, 
as  a proof  of  evolution  by  transmutation, 
Professor  Haeckel  goes  to  the  expense  of 
producing  two  elaborate  plates  represent- 
ing the  embryos  of  the  man , dog,  chicken, 
and  tortoise,  at  a correspondingly  early  and 
then  also  at  a more  advanced  stage  of 
growth,  in  which  the  tail  of  the  tortoise  and 
so-called  gill-arches  of  the  fish  are  con- 
spicuously displayed  in  the  human  embryo 
and  also  in  that  of  the  three  lower  animals, 
as  a proof  that  man  descended  from  the 
tortoise  and  the  fish. 

But  in  these  plates  (as  those  having  a 
copy  of  Professor  Haeckel’s  History  of 
Creation  will  see),  this  learned  naturalist 
overshoots  his  mark,  so  to  speak,  and  gives 
us  a complete  illustration  of  that  “vaulting 
ambition  which  o’erleaps  itself.”  It  is 
really  an  unfortunate  coincidence,  that, 
while  the  younger  series  of  embryonic  pic- 
tures makes  the  “little  human  tail”  and 
the  fish-gills  everything  the  most  ardent 
evolutionist  could  desire,  the  embryonic 
heads  of  the  four  different  orders  are  not 
only  a total  failure  but  a fatal  blunder, 
showing  such  a want  of  foresight  as  to 
utterly  overthrow  the  argument;  for  while 
the  head  of  the  human  embryo  is  the  proper 
size  and  exactly  in  proportion  to  the  size  of 
its  body, thus  consistently  representing  the 
human  cranial  type  from  the  commence- 
ment of  life,  the  head  of  the  tortoise  and 


that  of  the  chicken  are  enormously  out  of 
proportion  to  the  sizes  of  their  bodies,  and 
ridiculously  as  large  as  that  of  the  human 
embryo,  if  not  a trifle  larger!  Yet  every 
one, however  little  versed  in  natural  history, 
knows  that  the  head  of  a tortoise  in  pro- 
portion to  the  size  of  its  body  is  not  one 
quarter  as  large  as  that  of  man.  Thus  it 
follows,  since  the  head  is  of  infinitely  more 
importance  as  a guide  to  generic  classifica- 
tion than  the  tail,  that  Professor  Haeckel 
has  unwittingly  placed  his  hereditary  cart 
squarely  before  his  embryologic  horse,  and, 
by  giving  the  tortoise  a human  head,  has 
actually  reversed  evolution, and  proved  that 
the  reptile  descended  from  man  ! If  these 
sagacious  plates  of  Haeckel  are  correct, — 
which,  of  course,  must  be  admitted, — then 
the  whole  embryologic  argument  falls  to 
pieces,  since  the  most  casual  observer  must 
see,  who  examines  these  pictures,  that  while 
the  human  form  retains  its  own  head  in  due 
proportion  from  the  start,  the  tortoise  drops 
its  normal  head  and  adopts  that  of  man ! 
It  follows,  then,  unanswerably,  that  this 
“little  human  tail”which  Professor  Haeckel 
keeps  so  menacingly  before  his  opponents, 
as  he  refers  to  his  annihilating  plates,  never 
came  by  descent  from  the  tortoise  at  all, 
since  the  human  head  which  fits  so  coolly 
on  this  embryonic  reptile  could  not  have 
descended  from  man,  if  there  is  any  truth 
in  “survival  of  the  fittest.”  Manifestly, 
then,  from  the  consideration  of  Haeckel’s 
plates  alone,  some  other  explanation  than 
descent  from  reptiles  and  fishes  must  be 
given  of  the  tails 'and  gill-arches  found  in 
connection  with  human  embryos,  even  if  I 
had  not  already  presented  overwhelming 
reasons  why  descent  from  ancient  ancestors 
could  not,  by  the  remotest  possibility,  have 
anything  to  do  with  these  problems. 

Having  thus  succeeded  in  depriving 
evolution  of  the  least  claim  to  or  interest 
in  the  phenomena  of  embryology  and  re- 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


4i5 


versionary  action,  I shall  now  attempt  an 
explanation  of  these  problems, — which, 
however  imperfect  and  liable  to  objection, 
1 am  willing  to  submit  to  the  reader  with 
the  belief  that  they  will  present  more  plaus- 
ibility and  show  more  harmony  and  con- 
sistency with  already  established  facts  and 
scientific  laws  than  this  utterly  foundation- 
less theory  of  physical  descent. 

But  in  what  manner  shall  I begin  to 
frame  the  general  hypothesis  which  shall 
give  this  new  solution  of  these  remarkable 
phenomena?  If  it  be  true,  as  I claim  to 
have  already  demonstrated,  that  there  is 
such  a thing  as  a substantial  vital  and 
mental  organism  constituting  the  incorpo- 
real but  essential  entity  of  every  living 
creature,  which  I doubt  not  the  attentive 
reader  admits,  it  then  becomes  easily  sup- 
posable  that  such  a substantial  though  in- 
tangible structure  should  be  at  least  as 
complex  as  the  corporeal  organism,  which 
is  merely  its  physical  expression.  That 
such  a substantial  structure,  invisible  and 
intangible  yet  possessing  all  the  details  of 
parts  and  organs  of  the  corporeal  body, 
may  actually  exist  within  the  physical  and 
tangible  form  of  a living  creature,  consti- 
tuting its  real  and  essential  entity,  ought 
to  be  deemed  not  only  possible  but  rea- 
sonable, even  if  I had  not  already  given 
direct  proof  of  it.  In  view  of  the  incor- 
poreal substances  known  to  exist  in  Nature 
all  around  us,  completely  beyond  the  reach 
of  any  of  the  senses,  scientists  should  not 
deem  it  such  an  incredible  thing  that  a 
living  creature  may  possess  an  internal 
vital  organism  as  well  as  an  external  cor- 
poreal structure;  and  this  applies  particu- 
larly to  all  modern  scientific  thinkers  who 
believe  in  a universal  and  all-pervading 
yet  substantial  luminiferous  ether  which 
can  run  in  waves  and  circulate  freely 
through  the  texture  of  a diamond!  That 
such  a vital  and  mental  organism  does 


really  exist  in  every  human  form,  essen- 
tially related  to  and  intimately  blended 
with  such  corporeal  structure, and  through 
which  all  the  biological  phenomena  of  pro- 
creation, growth,  development,  inheritance, 
and  variation  from  specific  structures  take 
place,  I shall  again  assert  has  been  clearly 
established  in  the  two  preceding  argu- 
ments, in  which  were  shown  that  no  pecu- 
liarity or  characteristic  of  father  or  mother 
can  by  any  possibility  be  transmitted  to 
posterity  without  the  intervention  of  such 
an  incorporeal  organism ; and  that  no 
father,  on  any  known  principle  of  reason- 
ing, could  transfer  to  his  offspring  more 
than  about  a thousandth  part  of  his  like- 
ness or  character  as  compared  to  that 
which  would  be  transferred  by  the  mother, 
were  it  not  for  the  presence  of  such  in- 
visible vital  and  mental  organization  as 
the  exclusive  medium  of  all  inherited 
transmissions. 

Here,  then,  I make  my  first  hypothetic 
supposition,  that,  as  the  physical  structure 
contains  not  only  the  different  organs  of 
the  body  but  an  almost  infinite  number 
and  variety  of  separate  molecules  and 
units  or  real  organic  atoms,  so  the  vital 
organism  within  each  living  creature  con- 
tains not  only  the  intrinsic  life-form  of  the 
specific  being  it  inhabits  but  is  a veritable 
tnierocosm  or  a little  universe  of  life-forms 
which  include  the  intrinsic  germs  of  all 
organic  being  wherever  found.  Life  itself 
being  a real  substance  it  must  be  consti- 
tuted of  life-atoms,  while  its  molecules,  so 
to  speak,  consist  of  essential  life-forms  re- 
presenting every  living  creature,  the  same 
as  the  molecules  of  the  body  consist  of  the 
various  forms  and  kinds  of  organic  ele- 
ments which  go  to  make  up  the  countless 
and  manifold  constituents  of  all  bodies; 
and  hence,  within  the  life-germ  of  every 
organic  being,  or  within  this  intangible 
representative  kernel  of  existence,  all  other 


4 1 6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


life-forms  are  essentially  represented,  so 
that  when  the  microcosmic  germ  com- 
mences to  gather  about  it  the  corporeal 
elements  of  organic  structure,  there  are 
present  not  only  the  specific  structure  of 
the  family  to  which  the  germ  belongs,  but 
the  inconceivably  minute  images  and  essen- 
tial life-forms  of  all  other  living  creatures; 
and  while  thus  environed  with  all  forms  of 
life,  the  taking  on  of  an  abnormity,  from 
the  juxtaposition  of  unnumbered  images 
of  specific  beings,  would  be  but  the  natural 
result  of  a collision  through  some  pertur- 
bation in  the  mother  caused  by  one  of  the 
accidental  conditions  of  life  to  which  she 
might  be  and  is  at  all  times  exposed,  and 
which  might  indelibly  impress  her  mental 
or  vital  organism. 

So  far,  the  reader  may  say,  this  seems  to 
be  all  supposition.  Granted;  but  we  shall 
probably  see  as  we  advance  in  the  hypoth- 
esis corroborative  reasons  for  regarding  it 
as  a rational  and  even  scientific  basis  of 
solution  for  very  many  phenomena  wholly 
inexplicable  on  any  other  supposition. 

According  to  established  rules  among  all 
scientific  investigators,  I have  a perfect 
right  to  frame  any  scientific  hypothesis  I 
may  deem  expedient,  and  then  try  to  build 
up  a theory  by  seeing  how  far  the  admitted 
facts  of  science  and  Nature  will  harmonize 
with  such  hypothesis.  If,  after  carefully 
comparing  all  such  facts  with  my  pro- 
visional hypothesis,  I shall  conclude  that 
more  phenomena  are  explained  by  it,  and 
the  various  classes  of  facts  made  more  har- 
monious and  consistent  among  themselves 
than  by  means  of  any  other  known  hypoth- 
esis, it  is  logical  and  fair  to  claim  the  result 
of  such  investigation  as  a probable  scien- 
tific theory.  Mr.  Darwin  says: — 

“In  scientific  investigations  it  is  permitted  to 
invent  any  hypothesis , and  if  it  explains  various 
large  and  independent  classes  of  facts  it  rises  to  tlie 
rank  of  a well-grounded  theory.” — Animals  and 
Plants , vol.  i.,  p.  20. 


Having  found  that  the  theory  of  descent 
by  transmutation  can  not  possibly  explain 
these  embryonic  and  reversionary  phenom- 
ena since  the  physical  means  of  inheritance 
necessary  to  solve  such  problems  are  want- 
ing, and  since  the  dilution  of  ancestral 
blood  required  to  extend  as  far  back  as  to 
the  marsupial,  tortoise,  and  fis'h,  must  be 
infinitely  absurd,  even  if  ancestral  blood 
passed  from  one  generation  to  another, — 
which,  as  shown,  is  not  the  case, — I have 
therefore  invented  this  hypothesis  of  sub- 
stantial but  incorporeal  life-germs  as  vital 
microcosms,  based  on  the  demonstrated  fact 
that  the  life  and  mental  powers  of  every 
living  creature  constitute  a vital  and  men- 
tal organism,  which,  though  incorporeal 
and  intangible,  is  nevertheless  as  really 
substantial  as  the  corporeal  blood,  bone, 
and  muscle,  by  which  it  is  physically  re- 
presented. 

Mr.  Darwin  surely  can  not  take  excep- 
tion to  such  a microcosmic  assemblage  of 
vital  images  representing  a miniature  uni- 
verse of  living  structures.  He  teaches,  as 
recently  quoted,  that  not  only  the  opossum, 
kangaroo,  didelphys,  wombat,  and  all  other 
marsupial  forms  and  organic  structures,  are 
actually  present  in  their  physical  characters 
in  a woman,  but  necessarily  all  subsequent 
specific  characters  in  the  lineal  chain  of 
descent  from  the  marsupial  down  to  the 
present  time, — that  all  these  characters  lie 
“dormant”  or  “latent”  in  each  generation, 
ready  to  be  awakened  into  organic  struc- 
tures or  reversionary  forms  by  the  inter- 
vention of  some  unusual  condition  of  life. 
I re-quote : — 

“We  are  led  to  believe,  as  formerly  expressed, 
that  every  character  which  occasionally  re-appears 
is  present  in  a latent  form  in  each  generation.  . . . 
In  every  living  creature  we  may  feel  assured  that  a 
host  of  lost  characters  lie  ready  to  be  evolved  under 
proper  conditions."  (See  page  222.) 

No  physical  “ character,"  such  as  the 
mamma:  of  a wolf  or  tail  of  a tortoise,  can 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


4i7 


lie  “dormant”  for  countless  generations  in 
organic  beings  “ready  to  be  evolved,”  un- 
less the  form  of  such  organism — I care  not 
how  infinitesimally  small — is  actually  pres- 
ent all  the  time.  If  “hosts”  of  such  physi- 
cal organic  characters  and  forms  are  pres- 
ent “in  every  living  creature,”  “ready  to 
be  evolved  under  proper  conditions,”  have 
I supposed  anything  more  surprising  or 
wonderful  in  the  hypothesis  that  each  life- 
germ  is  a real  living  microcosm , containing 
a representation  of  all  vital  forms  of  being? 
But  Darwin  goes  even  further,  and  repre- 
sents each  physical  organism,  however  sim- 
ple, as  a literal  corporeal  “ microcosm .”  I 
quote  his  words: — 

“We  can  not  fathom  the  marvelous  complexity 
of  an  organic  being ; but  on  the  hypothesis  here  ad- 
vanced this  complexity  is  much  increased.  Each 
living  creature  must  be  looked  at  as  a microcosm — a 
little  universe — formed  of  a host  of  self-propagating 
organisms , inconceivably  minute,  and  as  numerous 
as  the  stars  of  heaven." — Animals  and  Plants , vol. 
ii.,  p.  483. 

The  “hypothesis”  to  which  Mr.  Darwin 
here  alludes  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  his  theory  of  descent,  without  which,  as 
he  evidently  understands,  or  without  the 
principle  which  it  involves,  no  transmission 
can  possibly  take  place  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another.  He  calls  it  “ pangenesis,'' 
and  elaborately  explains  it  at  the  close  of 
his  work  on  the  Variations  of  Animals  and 
Plants.  It  is  based  on  the  supposition  that 
the  cell-units  of  each  living  creature  throw 
off  minute  atoms  of  their  own  substance, 
which  he  terms  “ gemmules,"  and  which,  in 
fact, are  “self-propagating  organisms,” mul- 
tiplying themselves  by  “self-division”  of 
their  bodies,  the  same  as  explained  recently 
in  the  case  of  monera.  The  hypothesis, 
however,  is  purely  imaginary  and  entirely 
without  any  visible  or  tangible  foundation, 
since  “gemmules”  never  were  seen  either 
singly  or  in  mass,  probably  for  the  reason 
that  they  do  not  exist  at  all ; and,  if  they 


did,  no  microscope  would  be  sufficiently 
powerful  to  visualize  them.  Hence,  the 
hypothesis  is  purely  guess-work,  without 
any  apparent  reason  or  foundation  in  Na- 
ture or  science,  save  the  necessity  for  some- 
thing to  bridge  over  the  millions  of  physi- 
ological breaks  which  the  law  of  organic 
mutation  and  substitution  necessarily 
causes  in  the  lineal  chain  of  descent  from 
remote  ancestors,  as  I have  already  proved. 

In  fact,  the  hypothesis  of  “pangenesis” 
and  “gemmules”  seems  to  have  sprung 
itself  into  Mr.  Darwin’s  imagination  almost 
entirely  to  aid  the  cause  of  reversionary 
action, which  becomes  at  once  impracticable 
from  the  enormous  dilution  of  ancestral 
blood  in  a few  generations.  At  the  very 
commencement  of  the  hypothesis  he  says: 
“ Every  one  would  wish  to  explain  to  him- 
self, even  in  an  imperfect  manner,  how  it 
is  possible  for  a character  possessed  l>y  some 
remote  ancestor  suddenly  to  re-appear  in  the 
offspring.”  (. Animals  and  Plants,  vol.  ii., 
p.  428.)  He  surely  saw  at  a glance  that 
the  inconceivable  dilution  of  ancestral 
blood  by  the  law  of  consanguinity  in  a short 
time  rendered  the  possibility  of  characters 
being  transmitted  through  such  a medium 
as  utterly  out  of  the  question. 

To  meet  this  manifest  impracticability 
in  the  transmission  of  blood  or  other  cor- 
poreal substance,  even  through  a few  dozen 
generations,  Mr.  Darwin  must  have  seen 
(though  he  never  so  much  as  hints  it  in 
any  of  his  works)  that  something  substan- 
tial must  be  invented, differing  in  its  nature 
from  blood  or  any  other  ordinary  organic 
substance,  which  would  pass  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  without  being  lost  by 
dilution  or  cast  off  by  the  universal  law  of 
displacement  and  substitution.  He  never 
thinks  of  adopting  the  idea  which  I have 
so  clearly  and  repeatedly  demonstrated, 
namely,  that  the  mind  and  life  of  every 
creature  constitute  a substantial  but  incor- 


418 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


poreal  organism,  but  supposes  that  his  hy- 
pothetic physical  “gemmules” — in  fact, 
infinitesimal  living  creatures,  since  they 
are  “ ^//"-propagating  organisms”  and  ca- 
pable of  “jc^-division,” — will  answer  the 
purpose,  and  in  some  way  avoid  this  law 
of  displacement  and  substitution  and  not 
be  liable  to  the  same  mutation  as  other 
corporeal  atoms.  Yet,  in  keeping  with  the 
inherent  weakness  of  his  whole  theory,  he 
stultifies  his  hypothesis  by  assuming  that 
these  gemmules  pass  from  generation  to 
generation,  even  from  the  remotest  ances- 
tors, in  a “dormant”  and  consequently  in 
an  inactive  state,  and  must  therefore  be 
incapable  of  “self-propagation”  by  “self- 
division,” and  hence,  as  I will  abundantly 
show,  they  must  turn  out  to  be  wholly 
worthless;  for  how  can  such  “dormant” 
atoms  descend  all  the  way  from  an  ancient 
marsupial  in  a quiescent  condition, ready  to 
be  aroused  to  action  in  the  veins  of  a hu- 
man mother  and  thus  reproduce  marsupial 
organs,  any  more  than  atoms  of  the  original 
marsupial  blood? 

Such  is  a brief  view  of  this  great  hypoth- 
esis, so  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
Mr.  Darwin's  theory  of  descent,  and  with- 
out which  all  inherited  transmissions  are 
with  him  a physical  impossibility.  When 
it  is  shown  that  even  with  the  aid  of  this 
hypothesis  all  inheritance  remains  still  the 
same  physical  impossibility,  as  will  soon  be 
demonstrated,  the  weakness,  inefficiency, 
and  utter  helplessness  of  Darwinism,  will 
be  pitiably  apparent,  for  what  does  the 
theory  of  descent  amount  to  with  the  pos- 
sibility of  physical  transmissions  removed? 

I had  not  intended  here  to  enter  into  this 
provisional  assumption  of  “pangenesis” 
and  “gemmules,”  but  had  purposed  to 
defer  it  till  the  closing  chapter  of  this 
book;  particularly  as  right  here  it  breaks 
into  the  explanation  of  my  own  hypothesis 
of  microcosmic  life-germs.  But  as  it  is  the 


only  conceivable  hypothesis  which  Mr. 
Darwin  can  suggest  by  which  to  bridge 
over  the  millions  of  physiological  breaks 
and  chasms  which  have  been  proved  to 
occur  in  the  line  of  corporeal  descent,  I 
have  determined  to  meet  “pangenesis”  here 
and  now,  lest  some  reader  may  have  been 
misled  by  it,  and  might  suppose  it  to  mili- 
tate against  the  arguments  I have  pre- 
viously brought  to  bear  against  “rever- 
sions,’’such  as  the  impossibility  of  physical 
transmissions,  from  the  well-known  law  of 
mutation  and  substitution,  as  so  recently 
established.  I will  first,  however,  let  Mr. 
Darwin  give  us  his  hypothesis  in  his  own 
words : — 

“The  hypothesis  of  Pangenesis  as  applied  to  the 
several  great  classes  of  facts  just  discussed, no  doubt 
is  extremely  complex  . . . namely,  that  all  organic 
units,  besides  having  the  power,  as  is  generally  ad- 
mitted, of  growing  by  self-division,  throw  off  free 
and  minute  atoms  of  their  contents, that  is,  gemmules. 
These  multiply  and  aggregate  themselves  into  buds 
and  sexual  elements,  . . . and  they  are  capable  of 
transmission  in  a dormant  state  to  successive  genera- 
tions. . . . Reversion  depends  on  the  transmission 
from  the  forefather  to  his  descendants  of  dormant 
gemmules  that  occasionally  become  developed  under 
certain  known  or  unknown  conditions.” — Darwin, 
Animals  and  Plants , vol.  ii. , pp.  481,  483. 

The  reader  can  scarcely  fail  to  observe, 
by  reading  this  passage  attentively,  that 
Mr.  Darwin  was  really  troubled  in  his 
mind  about  his  reversionary  argument , 
which  he  tells  us  was  among  the  strong 
reasons  going  to  convince  him  of  the  truth 
of  evolution.  He  surely  must  some  time  or 
other  have  figured  far  enough  to  see  the 
absolute  impossibility  of  ancestral  blood 
producing  such  a result,  from  its  almost 
infinite  dilution  in  a few  generations;  and 
he  is  most  assuredly  intelligent  enough  not 
to  be  ignorant  of  the  universal  teaching  of 
physiology  that  all  corporeal  connection, 
even  between  succeeding  generations,  by 
means  of  blood  or  any  other  physical  sub- 
stance, is  constantly  being  swept  away  by 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


419 


the  law  of  growth,  displacement,  and  sub- 
stitution of  corporeal  ingredients.  Hence, 
the  absolute  necessity  for  something, which, 
unlike  blood  or  any  other  known  organic 
matter,  would  come  down  through  millions 
of  generations  without  being  dislodged  from 
the  organic  tissues,  or  otherwise  reversion, 
and  with  it  physical  descent  must  be  given 
up  as  purely  chimerical. 

It  will  take  but  a few  paragraphs  to  show 
the  inefficiency  of  this  provisional  hypoth- 
esis, and  to  clearly  demonstrate,  from  the 
language  in  which  “pangenesis”  is  couched, 
that  it  completely  stultifies  itself,  and  over- 
throws the  very  position  it  was  intended  to 
.establish.  It  will  be  at  once  seen  that 
“gemmules”in  a “dormant”  condition  can 
no  more  pass  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion in  the  blood  of  an  animal,  and  thus 
help  the  cause  of  reversionary  action,  than 
can  the  blood  itself  or  any  other  senseless, 
inactive,  useless  particles  of  matter,  which 
happen  to  collect  in  an  animal’s  system, — 
which,  as  I have  abundantly  proved,  pass 
off  by  physiological  change,  and  are  sub- 
stituted frequently  during  each  animal’s 
lifetime  by  other  constituents. 

It  is  entirely  evident  that  “ dormant" 
gemmules  are  powerless  for  transmission 
from  one  animal  to  another,  or  for  any  hold 
on  the  corporeal  texture  of  an  organic  be- 
ing, whatever  might  have  been  supposed  of 
the  same  organisms  in  a “self-propagating” 
state, — which,  unfortunately  for  the  in- 
ventor of  the  hypothesis,  he  lacked  either 
the  forethought  or  shrewdness  to  provide 
for.  The  very  word  “dormant,”  according 
to  all  dictionaries,  signifies  inactive , asleep, 
quiescent,  &c.;  and  hence,  while  in  this 
state,  as  Mr.  Darwin  frequently  admits, 
gemmules,  if  they  really  exist  and  are  even 
all  he  represents  them  to  be,  can  develop 
into  nothing,  since,  being  inactive,  “self- 
propagation”  by  “jc^-division”  is  out  of 
the  question,  and  therefore  multiplication, 


to  keep  up  the  stock  or  replace  those  cast 
off  from  the  animal  organism,  is  clearly 
impossible ! 

It  must  follow,  from  the  above  self- 
evident  considerations,  that  such  “dor- 
mant,” quiescent,  sleeping,  inactive  “gem- 
mules,” would  be  of  no  more  account  in  a 
living  organism  than  any  useless,  cumber- 
some, excrementitious  atoms  of  matter; 
and  as  the  hypothesis  supposes  them  to 
remain  in  such  a “dormant”  state  during 
the  countless  generations  of  descent  till 
they  happen  to  be  aroused  and  developed 
into  organs  by  “unknown  causes,”  the  in- 
telligence of  every  reader  is  sufficient  to 
convince  him  that  such  gemmules  could 
not  descend  at  all  even  through  one  gene- 
ration by  the  inevitable  laws  of  physiology, 
as  already  shown. 

This  law  of  the  constant  displacement 
and  substitution  of  all  corporeal  ingredients 
constituting  every  organic  being,  as  so  re- 
cently established  by  high  authorities, 
would  therefore  as  certainly  remove  “dor- 
mant” gemmules  as  it  would  displace  quies- 
cent or  inactive  trichina  in  an  animal’s 
system ; and  it  is  clearly  evident  that  these 
parasites  can  only  maintain  their  hold  on 
organic  tissue  while  in  an  active,  propa- 
gating, or  multiplying  condition.  Hence, 
as  all  considerations  go  to  prove,  “dor- 
mant” or  inactive  gemmules  could  not 
pass  to  the  succeeding  generation,  to  say 
nothing  about  two  or  three  millions,  as 
Mr.  Darwin’s  “pangenesis”  requires. 

This  great  author  has  thus  made  a mis- 
take, which  he  will  never  be  able  to  rec- 
tify, in  attempting  to  transmit  gemmules 
in  a “dormant”  condition  through  millions 
of  generations,  or  from  that  ancient  epoch 
when  a woman  wore  the  marsupium  of  the 
didelphys  down  to  the  present  time.  I 
fear  that  word  “dormant”  has  already 
proved  the  death  of  “pangenesis,”  since  it 
actually  makes  such  sleeping,  inactive, 


420 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


quiescent,  and  worthless  atoms,  no  better 
than  any  other  little  specks  of  bone  or  life- 
less matter,— not  even  as  good  as  ordinary 
blood,  since  this  author  and  inventor  does 
not  claim  “dormant”  gemmules  as  being 
nutritious  or  even  digestible.  If  an  opos- 
sum were  therefore  loaded  down  with  them 
they  would  only  be  a burthen  to  carry, 
without  doing  the  least  particle  of  good. 

I insist  upon  it,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Dar- 
win committed  a fatal  blunder  in  employ- 
ing such  a stupid  word  as  “dormant,”  when 
there  were  so  many  wide-awake  words  in 
the  dictionary!  Instead  of  allowing  these 
little  sleepers  to  curl  up  in  the  veins  of 
kangaroos  in  the  far-off  Eocene  period  for 
a nap  of  two  million  years  he  should  rather 
have  started  them  on  their  journey  alive 
and  kicking,  so  to  speak,  and  instead  of 
administering  such  a soporific  as  “pangen- 
esis,” which  was  enough  to  put  anything 
to  sleep,  he  should  not  have  allowed  them 
to  close  their  eyes  during  the  entire  trip! 

It  is  simply  a matter  of  astonishment 
that  the  author  of  “natural  selection”  and 
“survival  of  the  fittest”  should  show  so 
little  sagacity  in  a matter  so  vital  to  his 
hypothesis.  After  proving  himself  capable 
of  inventing  such  a word  as  “pangenesis,” 
and  especially  of  originating  such  a “self- 
propagating”  little  imp  of  an  organism  as 
a “gemmule,”  it  is  the  profoundest  kind 
of  a puzzle  that  he  should  deliberately  put 
it  to  sleep  and  allow  it  thus  to  be  cast  off 
from  the  marsupial  organism  as  worthless 
matter  and  immediately  substituted  by  new 
ingredients,  thus  smashing  his  “pangene- 
sis,” and  with  it  his  theory  of  descent, 
rather  than  to  keep  it  awake,  self-dividing 
its  little  body  so  rapidly  as  to  prevent  all 
danger  of  the  supply  of  ancestral  marsu- 
pial “gemmules”  becoming  exhausted! 
But  the  fatal  mistake  was  made,  as  has  so 
often  been  done  before  by  great  men,  and 
can  not  now  be  recalled. 


As  “self-propagating”  gemmules  are 
necessary,  according  to  this  provisional 
hypothesis,  in  “each  living  creature,”  to 
give  vitality  to  the  organic  units  of  its  body, 
then  the  organic  units  of  the  gemmule  itself 
will  necessarily  require  the  same  kind  of 
“self-propagating  organisms,”  though  on  a 
scale  almost  infinitely  reduced,  probably 
as  much  smaller  than  these  original  gem- 
mules as  they  are  smaller  than  kangaroos; 
for  since  the  “gemmule”  is  a veritable 
“jr //-propagating  organism ,”  capable  of 
“jc^/-division,”  it  must  necessarily  be  a 
“living  creature,”  and  therefore  as  much 
entitled  to  the  benefits  of  another  “pan- 
genesis” as  was  the  original  kangaroo! 
It  would  be  really  interesting  for  Mr.  Dar- 
win to  extend  his  hypothesis  to  the  organic 
units  of  these  “gemmules,”  which  he  could 
easily  do  by  inventing  another  word,  and 
thus  calling  them  pinnules,  for  example; 
and  then  again,  since  these  pinnules  would 
likewise  be  living  “self-propagating  organ- 
isms,” he  could  continue  on  with  the  inno- 
cent amusement  of  extending  “pangenesis” 
ad  infinitum , which  would  probably  be  of 
as  much  use  to  the  world  and  to  the  cause 
of  science  as  any  other  portion  of  this  self- 
contradictory theory  of  descent. 

Since  Mr.  Darwin  insists  on  his  “gem- 
mules” coming  all  the  way  down  through  a 
million  generations  in  a “dormant”  state, 
and  of  course  inactive  and  incapable  of 
multiplying  by  “self-division,”  let  us  by  a 
little  calculation  consider  the  chances  of 
any  given  original  stock  of  “dormant 
gemmules,  however  enormously  large,  run- 
ning out  in  a given  time,  and  in  this  sum- 
mary manner  open  up  the  manifest  imprac- 
ticability of  marsupial  gemmules  coming 
down  to  the  present  generation,  and  still 
sleeping,  as  Mr.  Darwin  maintains,  in  the 
veins  of  human  mothers. 

We  will  suppose  the  last  marsupial  from 
which  the  line  divaricated  leading  toward 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


421 


the  human  species  (for  there  must  have 
been  a last  one)  gave  over  to  the  primal 
parent  or  head  of  this  line  all  its  gemmules 
fast  asleep,  or  in  a “dormant”  state,  to  be 
faithfully  transmitted  down  to  future  gene- 
rations for  the  special  purpose  of  producing 
“reversions,”  and  thus  assisting  modern 
evolution,  as  they  seem  really  to  have  no 
other  use.  I am  now  willing,  in  order  to 
make  the  case  as  strong  for  “pangenesis” 
as  possible,  to  admit  that  there  were  in 
that  single  opossum,  kangaroo,  didelphys, 
or  whatever  other  marsupial,  one  hundred 
millions  of  these  sleeping  gemmules.  If 
Mr.  Darwin  were  here  and  should  request 
it,  I would  double  the  number,  or  increase 
it  till  he  should  express  himself  as  entirely 
satisfied.  But  as  he  is  not  here  to  consult, 
I will  take  it  for  granted  that  I have  met 
his  wishes  in  placing  the  number  at 
100,000,000,  which  is  a liberal  population 
of  “self-propagating  organisms”  to  have 
possession  of  one  small  animal’s  body. 

I am  now  even  willing  to  admit,  in  order 
to  oblige  Mr.  Darwin  and  facilitate  pan- 
genesis, that  these  quiescent  or  “dormant” 
gemmules  do  not  come  under  the  universal 
law  of  displacement  and  substitution  which 
controls  other  useless,  innutritious  corpo- 
real substances,  and  which  leads  to  their 
rejection  and  to  an  entire  physical  meta- 
morphosis of  an  animal’s  body  every  few 
years.  I will  concede,  to  help  his  “pro- 
visional hypothesis,”  that  these  100,000,000 
gemmules  were  of  such  a nature  as  not  to 
be  superseded  and  displaced  by  new  in- 
gredients taken  up  from  organic  and  inor- 
ganic nature,  but  that  they  became,  on 
their  first  transfer,  a part  of  the  animal’s 
identity  of  being  or  of  its  natural  selfhood. 

Now,  after  doing  all  this  to  accommo- 
date Mr.  Darwin  and  aid  pangenesis,  let 
us  see  what  it  amounts  to.  The  very  first 
generation  of  descent, or  the  first  descend- 
ant of  this  primal  head  of  the  line,  would 


take  one  half  of  these  “dormant”  gem- 
mules, leaving  the  other  half  in  the  body 
of  the  father,  thus  giving  them  50,000,000 
gemmules  apiece.  Is  not  this  an  inevitable 
conclusion? 

It  would  not  do  to  assume  that  the  father 
kept  them  all, giving  none  to  his  offspring, 
for  if  that  was  the  law,  then,  as  soon  as  the 
father  should  happen  to  die,  it  would  end 
the  business  for  the  “dormant”  gemmules, 
and  wipe  out  Mr.  Darwin’s  pangenesis. 
Neither  would  it  do  to  assume  that  the 
father  transmitted  them  all  to  the  son;  for 
if  that  was  the  plan  of  transmission,  then 
at  all  times  during  the  millions  of  years 
which  have  since  succeeded,  the  entire 
100,000,000  “dormant”  organisms  would 
have  their  sleeping  apartments  within  one 
single  animal’s  body.  This  is  wholly  in- 
admissible, since  the  accidental  death  of 
that  one  animal  which  happened  at  the 
particular  time  to  be  the  custodian  of  this 
precious  stock  of  ancestral  gemmules 
would  in  like  manner  annihilate  “pangen- 
esis,” since  there  could  now  be  no  dormant 
marsupial  organisms  in  the  blood  of  human 
mothers  to  cause  reversions,  so  essential  to 
the  cause  of  evolution. 

Hence,  the  safe,  natural,  and  scientific 
mode  of  transmission,  would  necessarily 
be,  as  stated  at  the  start,  that  each  lineal 
descendant  should  receive  one  half  the 
dormant  gemmules  possessed  by  its  father. 
Now,  I wonder  if  Mr.  Darwin  ever  took 
the  trouble  to  think  how  long  it  would 
take  to  exhaust  any  given  original  stock 
of  “dormant”  gemmules,  however  large? 
It  seems  to  me  if  he  had  even  given  it 
a casual  thought,  he  surely  would  never 
have  dreamt  of  “pangenesis.”  Instead  of 
transmitting  such  quiescent  organisms 
down  through  a million  generations,  as  is 
absolutely  necessary  according  to  this  pro- 
visional hypothesis,  the  twenty-seventh  de- 
scendant in  this  lineal  chain  from  that  last 


422 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


marsupial  would  have  but  a single  dormant 
gemmule  remaining  in  its  body , while  the 
twenty-eighth  descendant  would  destroy 
that ! The  following  table,  leaving  out  a 
few  unimportant  fractions,  shows  how 
rapidly  the  original  stock  of  100,000,000 
gemmules  would  become  reduced  by  these 
continual  subdivisions,  according  to  the 
law  of  consanguinity;  for, it  must  never  be 
lost  sight  of,  that  since  these  gemmules, 
according  to  “pangenesis,”  are  transmitted 
in  a “dormant”  state,  they  are  necessarily 
inactive,  and  hence  have  no  power  to  prop- 
agate themselves  by  self-division,  and  thus 
increase  their  number  on  the  way: — 

1st  generation,  100,000,000  dormant  gemmules. 


2d 

1 1 

50,000,000 

i i 

ii 

3d 

i i 

25,000,000 

a 

1 1 

4th 

i 1 

12,500,000 

a 

ii 

5th 

i t 

6,250,000 

a 

ii 

6th 

ii 

3,125.000 

a 

it 

7th 

«< 

1,562,500 

a 

ii 

8th 

ii 

781,250 

a 

ti 

gth 

« < 

390,625 

a 

it 

10th 

i i 

195,312 

a 

ii 

nth 

it 

97,656 

a 

ii 

12th 

it 

48,828 

a 

ii 

13  th 

it 

24,414 

a 

ii 

14th 

( ( 

12,207 

t i 

it 

15  th 

ti 

6, 103 

a 

l i 

16th 

i t 

3,051 

t i 

ti 

17th 

( ( 

1,525 

1 1 

i i 

18th 

u 

762 

a 

ii 

19  th 

ti 

381 

1 1 

i i 

20th 

i l 

190 

a 

i t 

21st 

It 

95 

a 

ti 

22d 

1 1 

47 

1 1 

ii 

23d 

t i 

23 

1 1 

it 

24th 

ii 

11 

i 1 

i t 

25  th 

it 

5 

i i 

it 

26th 

i i 

2 

a 

i i 

27th 

a 

1 

i 1 

a 

28th 

1 « 

The  last  dormant  gemmule  cut  in  two 

and  destroyed ! 

As 

soon 

as  reduced  to  a single 

gemmule, 

at  the  twenty-seventh  link 

in  the  chain  of 

descent,  “pangenesis”  necessarily 

explodes, 

since 

Mr. 

Darwin  distinctly  teaches  that  a 

single  gemmule  can  do  nothing  toward  de- 
veloping a “part”  of  an  animal’s  structure, 


but  that  it  requires  “a  numbet  or  mass  of 
them”  to  accomplish  any  result: — 

"Bui  gemmules  differ  from  Mr.  Spencer’s  physio- 
logical units,  inasmuch  as  a certain  number  or  mass 
of  them  are,  as  we  shall  see,  requisite  for  the  devel~ 
opment  of  each  cell  or  part."— Animals  and  Plants, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  450. 

Thus  ends  the  great  hypothesis  of  “pan- 
genesis,” before  even  the  first  variety 
branching  off  from  the  last  marsupial  in 
the  line  has  had  time  to  change  the  color 
of  its  hair,  let  alone  become  a distinct 
species;  and  hence  we  may  bid  good-bye 
to  “dormant”  gemmules  and  to  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s provisional  pangenesis! 

Having  made  this  digression  for  the 
purpose  of  disposing  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  great 
hypothesis,  I now  return  to  the  discussion 
of  my  own  provisional  assumption  of  an 
incorporeal  vital  and  mental  microcosm, 
which  I have  supposed  to  exist  as  a little 
universe  of  life-forms  present  in  each  ovule 
at  the  beginning  of  each  individual  life, or 
as  soon  as  the  ovule  is  pervaded  by  the 
vital  entity  or  intangible  essence  of  being 
from  both  parents. 

By  turning  back  to  the  last  passage 
quoted  before  the  digression, it  will  be  seen 
that  Mr.  Darwin  assumes  a “microcosm” 
or  a “little  universe”  of  corporeal  organ- 
isms, as  present  in  each  living  creature, 
and  as  “numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven.” 
In  the  quotation  just  preceding  it  we 
are  informed  that  a “ host  of  lost  charac- 
ters” are  continually  present  “in  every 
living  creature.”  Now,  if  Mr.  Darwin  has 
a right  to  assume  a “microcosm,”  or  a 
“little  universe”  of  “self-propagating  or- 
ganisms” “numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven” 
existing  within  “each  living  creature,” 
which  includes  monera,  monads,  and  the 
smallest  bacteria,  barely  visible  by  means 
of  the  microscope,  thus  embracing  within 
one  infinitesimal  atom  tens  of  thousands 
of  different  species  represented  in  their 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


423 


“dormant  gemmules,”  then  surely  I have 
an  equal  right  to  avail  myself  of  a rational 
modification  of  his  assumption,  which, 
however  improbable  in  its  corporeal  sense 
as  he  employs  it,  becomes  a grand  and 
beautiful  possibility  when  applied  as  I ap- 
ply it  to  the  substantial  and  vital  essence 
of  being.  If  Mr.  Darwin,  therefore,  is  au- 
thority in  the  discussion  of  evolution  (and 
he  surely  will  be  so  regarded  by  me  when- 
ever he  favors  the  overthrow  of  his  own 
system),  I clearly  have  a right  to  assume 
a vital  microcosm  essentially  embraced 
within  every  life-germ  in  which  are  repre- 
sented the  ideal  forms  of  universal  being, 
since  it  has  been  so  clearly  demonstrated 
that  there  is  actually  a vital  and  mental 
organism  within  each  living  creature  in 
addition  to  its  physical  structure. 

My  hypothesis,  therefore,  contemplates 
no  such  an  improbable  idea  as  a “micro- 
cosm” of  physical  characters  or  corporeal 
forms  representing  the  corporeal  organs 
of  countless  diverse  species,  which  is  the 
only  conception  Mr.  Darwin  has  of  such  a 
“ microcosm.”  Instead  of  physical  forms 
my  hypothesis  only  supposes  the  presence 
in  every  life-germ  of  a microcosm  repre- 
senting the  essential  but  incorporeal  forms 
of  the  vital  and  mental  entities  of  being 
throughout  Nature.  But  as  these  vital  and 
mental  germs  of  the  various  living  struc- 
tures can  all  exist  within  the  same  space 
of  one  of  them,  like  oth&r  incorporeal  sub- 
stances, such  as  sound,  heat,  light,  magnet- 
ism, gravitation,  and  electricity,  without 
the  conflict  of  space  unavoidable  with  all 
corporeal  bodies,  however  small,  they  do 
not  therefore  involve  the  necessary  want 
of  room  or  idea  of  crowding  in  a human 
ovule,  for  example,  which  is  but  about  the 
125th  of  an  inch  in  diameter. 

If  Mr.  Darwin,  in  order  to  sustain  evo- 
lution, may  rationally  suppose  a physical 
“microcosm,”  and  the  presence  within  the 


smallest  animalcule  of  the  physical  germs 
of  organs  or  corporeal  characters,  “numer- 
ous as  the  stars  of  heaven,”  ready  to  be 
evolved  into  fully  developed  structures, 
am  I not  rationally  justified  in  assuming 
the  presence  of  a vital  and  incorporeal  mi- 
crocosm in  every  life-germ  by  which  to 
explain  these  otherwise  inexplicable  facts 
of  science,  especially  since  it  has  been  so 
clearly  shown  that  physical  descent  and 
inheritance  are  out  of  the  question?  Hav- 
ing demonstrated  that  there  is  and  must 
be  a vital  and  mental  organism,  which  is 
wholly  intangible  and  incorporeal,  inclosed 
within  each  physical  structure, and  without 
which  no  inheritance  or  transmission  of 
any  kind  can  take  place,  have  I not  a right, 
as  a provisional  hypothesis,  to  assume  that 
within  the  germ  of  such  vital  organism  a 
microcosm,  representing  all  life-forms,  may 
exist,  with  a thousand  times  more  plausi- 
bility than  Mr.  Darwin  can  assume  a sim- 
ilar “little  universe”  of  physical  organisms 
which  have  come  down  through  countless 
generations  in  a dormant  ” condition  by 
physical  descent? 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  such  a vital 
and  mental  microcosm,  embraced  within 
each  life-germ  at  the  commencement  of 
every  embryonic  being, is  not  an  incredible 
idea,  on  the  principles  laid  down  and  hy- 
potheses invented  by  Mr.  Darwin,  I now 
propose  to  look  at  the  various  problems 
involved,  and  see  how  far  they  can  be  ex- 
plained and  made  to  harmonize  with  the 
facts  of  biology,  physiology,  psychology,  and 
science  generally, based  on  such  a supposed 
microcosm. 

Viewing  the  intangible  and  incorporeal 
life-germ  of  each  sentient  being  as  such  a 
microcosmic  assemblage  as  I have  de- 
scribed, it  is  not  a surprising  result  that 
the  embryos  of  all  animals  should  appear 
exactly  alike  at  the  commencement  of  the 
corporeal  concentration  of  organic  sub- 


424 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


stance.  Could  this  incorporeal  germ  itself 
be  seen  in  its  microcosmic  condition, — 
which,  of  course,  can  not  be  done  with 
mortal  and  physical  eyes,— the  absolute 
presence,  in  their  essential  forms,  of  all 
animate  nature  would  probably  be  ob- 
served, just  as  the  leaves,  buds,  blossoms, 
twigs,  boughs,  branchlets,  bark,  trunk,  and 
roots  of  the  perfect  tree,  may  be  supposed 
to  exist  in  their  essential  and  elemental 
outlines  within  the  life-nucleolus  of  every 
acorn;  and  if  the  analogy  between  animal 
and  vegetal  life  is  carried  out,  as  it  might 
be,  the  seed-germ  of  a tree  would  probably 
present  an  arboretum  or  a microcosm  of 
the  entire  vegetable  kingdom. 

To  say  it  would  be  impossible  for  such 
a microcosm  of  animal  life  to  exist  in  the 
vital  germ  of  the  embryonic  being,  would 
be,  of  course,  to  repudiate  Mr.  Darwin’s 
corporeal  microcosm  of  physical  organisms 
as  almost  infinitely  more  improbable.  If 
a landscape  of  mountains,  hills,  rivers, 
valleys,  trees,  villas,  &c.,  extending  for 
leagues,  can  be  photographed  upon  the 
retina  of  a human  eye  in  such  a condensed 
form  and  yet  be  perfectly  outlined  in  every 
feature  on  such  a mere  speck  of  surface, 
and  can  then  be  copied  in  all  its  details  on 
the  focal  point  of  the  optic  nerve  so  almost 
infinitely  reduced  in  size  that  the  most 
powerful  microscope  can  trace  no  impres- 
sion, yet  along  this  thread  such  actual  land- 
scape, in  all  its  minutiae,  can  be  conducted 
to  the  brain,  and  there  reproduced  in  its 
full  size  by  the  incorporeal  mental  impres- 
sion, it  would  seem  that  no  conception  of 
an  incorporeal  microcosm  ought  to  be  re- 
jected on  the  ground  of  its  impossible  con- 
densation or  want  of  room. 

The  earlier  the  stage  of  growth  at  which 
we  view  the  embryos  of  various  animals, 
or  the  less  they  are  developed,  the  more 
intimately  do  they  resemble  each  other, 
while  the  farther  they  are  developed  to- 


ward natal  life  the  more  are  they  differen- 
tiated into  specific  form  and'outline,  under 
the  influence  of  the  specific  substantial  life- 
germ.  From  this  state  of  facts  it  would 
follow  that  when  we  trace  the  development 
backward  to  the  ovule  itself  the  resem- 
blance would  be  perfect,  which,  strange  to 
say,  is  admitted  by  evolutionists,  and 
claimed  by  them  as  an  important  fact  in 
favor  of  their  theory,  but  which,  as  I will 
show,  unwittingly  refutes  the  whole  hy- 
pothesis. 

Mr.  Darwin  distinctly  tells  us,  as  already 
quoted,  that  “Man  is  developed  from  an 
ovule  about  125th  of  an  inch  in  diameter, 
which  differs  in  no  respect  from  the  ovules 
of  other  animals."  This  is  an  anatomical 
fact  which  I do  not  question,  so  far  as  the 
physical  structure  of  such  ovules  is  con- 
cerned, which,  of  course,  involves  the  en- 
tire extent  of  this  author’s  conception  of 
their  existence.  In  fact,  it  is  intrinsically 
and  essentially  a part  of  Darwinism  not  to 
recognize  anything  as  substantial  in  con- 
nection with  any  living  creature  but  the 
physical  and  tangible  organism.  But  this 
admission,  just  quoted,  fatally  overthrows 
this  erroneous  view  of  organic  being,  and 
is  the  most  undeniable  acknowledgment  of 
the  truth  of  all  I have  been  urging  in  re- 
gard to  a vital  and  mental  organism  being 
inclosed  within  and  physically  expressed 
by  the  corporeal  structure.  If  the  ovules 
from  which  the  most  diverse  species  are 
developed, “differ  in  no  respect”  from  each 
other,  as  Mr.  Darwin  so  frankly  admits, 
does  it  not  follow  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt  that  within  the  ovule  of  each 
specific  form  at  the  beginning  of  life,  there 
must  exist  an  invisible,  incorporeal  (yet 
substantial)  organism,  which  does  truly 
embrace  every  outline  of  the  creature  into 
which  such  specific  ovule  will  ultimately 
differentiate? 

If  there  is  no  difference  between  the 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


4-5 


human  ovule  and  that  of  a lower  animal, 
physically  considered,  as  Mr.  Darwin 
teaches  truly,  and  then  if  there  is  no  sub- 
stantial mental  and  vital  organism  holding 
within  it  the  specific  form  and  outline 
which  takes  possession  of  such  an  ovule 
and  leads  on  to  its  proper  development, 
controlling  the  accumulation  and  arrange- 
ment of  corporeal  atoms  drawn  from  the 
mother’s  organism,  then  it  unavoidably 
follows  that  all  ovules  should  develop  and 
differentiate  exactly  alike,  according  to 
evolution;  that  is,  if  they  could  develop 
at  all  without  such  vital  organism,  which, 
of  course,  they  can  not. 

Hence,  as  in  the  case  of  Prof.  Haeckel’s 
annihilating  “ plates,”  which  were  to  over- 
whelm the  opponents  of  evolution,  but 
which  unfortunately  proved  that  the  tor- 
toise descended  from  man,  so  Mr.  Darwin, 
in  his  anxiety  to  produce  a crushing  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  his  theory  by  showing 
that  the  human  and  marsupial  ovules 
“differ  in  no  respect”  from  each  other, 
has  literally  destroyed  the  foundation  of 
evolution  by  proving  that  there  is  no  scien- 
tific reason  within  the  prevision  of  his  great 
theory  why  the  ovule  of  a lioness  should 
not  be  just  as  apt  to  produce  a young 
hyena  as  a young  lion!  It  therefore  inev- 
itably follows  that  there  is  no  scientific 
law  within  reach  of  evolution  and  its 
purely  physical  system  of  philosophy  which 
can  assign  a shadow  of  a reason,  after  this 
admission,  why  a crocodile  should  not 
bring  forth  a young  reindeer,  or  a cow 
should  not  produce  kittens,  since  their 
ovules  “differ  in  no  respect”  from  each 
other,  and  since  such  a thing  as  an  incor- 
poreal, substantial,  organic  life-germ,  is 
entirely  foreign  to  that  wholly  materialistic 
philosophy. 

This  important  discovery  of  Mr.  Darwin, 
that  the  human  ovule  “differs  in  no  respect 
from  the  ovules  of  other  animals,”  may  not 


after  all  prove  such  a godsend  to  evolution 
when  we  shall  have  traced  its  legitimate 
bearing  a little  further.  It  becomes,  in 
fact,  another  scientific  demonstration  that 
there  is  present  in  the  life-germ  of  every 
living  creature  a substantial  vital  and 
mental  organism,  which  really  contains  the 
specific  entity  of  each  being,  from  which 
alone  the  animal  form  derives  its  structural 
outline;  and  that  the  substantial  is  not 
therefore  limited  to  the  visible  and  tan- 
gible, as  evolution  necessarily  inculcates. 
Without  this  absolute  entity  of  being  ex- 
isting invisibly  and  incorporeally,  yet  sub- 
stantially, within  each  ovule,  representing, 
as  an  individual  microcosm,  every  bone, 
joint,  muscle,  ligament,  vein,  artery,  and 
nerve  of  the  entire  anatomy  of  such  specific 
form,  it  may  be  relied  upon  as  a physio- 
logical fact  that  no  such  a thing  as  devel- 
opment or  differentiation  could  take  place 
from  any  ovule. 

If  Mr.  Darwin  were  asked  to  give  some 
explanation  why  an  equine  ovule  differen- 
tiates and  develops  into  a colt  rather  than 
into  a puppy,  since  the  ovule  of  the  horse 
“differs  in  no  respect”  from  that  of  the 
dog,  he  would  probably  reply,  as  he  did 
when  imploring  some  solution  to  the  prob- 
lem of  inherited  instinct  and  acquired 
habit  in  a retriever:  “An  answer  to  this 
question,  however  imperfect,  would  be  sat- 
isfactory.” The  truth  is,  these  physical 
philosophers,  who  believe  in  nothing  sub- 
stantial but  the  tangible,  haven’t  the  re- 
motest idea  how  to  answer  any  of  these 
questions  or  solve  any  problem  relating 
to  inheritance,  reproduction,  or  develop- 
ment; yet  they  assume  to  hold  the  only 
keys  in  the  theory  of  descent  by  which  all 
these  mysteries  of  inherited  transmissions 
are  to  be  unlocked,  at  the  same  time  plead- 
ing for  any  kind  of  answer  to  a question 
no  more  profound  than  any  and  all  others 
relating  to  inheritance  and  development; 


426 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


for  they  all  involve  the  same  underlying 
principle  of  a substantial  vital  organism  in 
each  living  creature  as  the  counterpart  of 
its  corporeal  structure. 

No  question  more  profound,  or,  in  fact, 
more  simple,  was  ever  asked  relating  to 
the  great  subject  of  inheritance,  than  why 
a chicken  as  soon  as  it  leaves  its  shell, 
without  having  seen  its  mother  or  any 
other  fowl,  will  commence  running  around 
and  hunting  grains  of  food,  or  why  it  will 
even  tap  against  the  shell  with  its  beak 
and  break  its  way  out.  I have  used  the 
remark,  no  question  more  profound  or 
more  simple , since  they  are  all  alike,  and 
the  man  who  can  answer  one  can  answer 
all,  while  he  who  fails  on  one,  however 
apparently  profound  or  simple,  may  at 
once  drop  the  whole  subject,  as  he  will 
assuredly  fail  on  all. 

That  a young  chicken,  without  being 
taught  by  experience,  wall  pick  up  and 
swallow  a fly  but  cautiously  avoid  a bee  of 
the  same  size  and  nearly  the  same  form, 
while  a little  child, not  having  been  taught 
to  the  contrary,  will  pick  up  a poisonous 
snake  as  readily  as  it  would  take  in  its 
hand  a piece  of  ribbon,  is  a mystery  which 
well  may  puzzle  the  brains  of  materialistic 
philosophers;  for  they  have  no  conceivable 
answer  within  the  range  of  their  physical 
ideas  which  sheds  a glimmer  of  light  on 
these  problems. 

It  is  a cheap  answer  to  say  it  is  instinct 
which  leads  the  chicken  to  pursue  such  and 
such  a course.  But  what  is  instinct?  Evi- 
dently the  chicken  knows  in  what  manner 
its  food  will  be  found,  if  it  gets  it.  It  also 
knows  that  the  bee  is  dangerous,  and  that 
the  fly  is  not  only  harmless  but  nutritious. 
Young  mammals  also  know,  as  soon  as 
born,  w'here  and  how  to  go  in  search  for 
the  breast;  and, as  seen  with  litters  of  pigs, 
will  range  themselves  in  the  most  orderly 
manner  at  the  very  first  trial.  The  mother 


does  not  tell  them,  nor  give  them  the  least 
instruction.  How,  then,  have  they  learned 
it?  That  they  know  where  to  go  and  how 
to  proceed,  by  what  we  term  instinct , there 
can  be  no  doubt.  Then  what  is  instinct 
but  knowledge  or  intelligence l 

The  answer  to  this  entire  problem  of 
animal  instinct  and  human  reason,  and  the 
exact  difference  between  them,  can  be 
given  in  a couple  of  paragraphs,  which  has 
never,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  been  be- 
fore accomplished,  simply  because  the  true 
basis  of  such  solution  has  hitherto  been 
wholly  ignored  by  writers  on  the  subject. 
Since  no  intelligent  solution  can  be  con- 
ceived of  without  admitting  a Creative  Will 
to  start  with,  hence  the  bewilderment, con- 
fusion, and  contradictory  attempts  at  ex- 
planation, indulged  in  by  evolutionists,  as 
will  soon  be  shown  from  Mr.  Darwin  him- 
self; while  the  weak,  half-evolved,  and  un- 
satisfactory attempts  at  solution,  by  those 
who  admit  a Creative  Will,  result  alone 
from  a failure  to  recognize  the  dual  organ- 
ism of  every  sentient  being,  which  I have 
postulated  from  the  introductory  chapter 
to  the  present  page  as  the  only  possible 
basis  of  solution  for  the  thousands  of  mys- 
teries brought  to  light  by  physiological  re- 
search. 

Is  there,  then,  a satisfactory  and  distinct 
line  of  demarkation  between  human  intel- 
ligence and  that  knowledge  possessed  by 
the  lower  orders  of  animals  which  we 
usually  designate  as  instinct?  And  is  it 
further  possible  to  give  a clear  and  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  exact  modus 
operandi  by  which  that  demarkation  was 
first  established  and  by  which  it  is  still  kept 
up  through  the  fixed  laws  and  principles 
of  Nature?  I will  now  attempt  quite  briefly 
to  give  this  solution,  to  which  I invite  the 
reader’s  careful  attention. 

The  Creative  Will  in  forming  the  first 
pair  of  fowls,  for  example,  supplied  them 


CuAr.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


from  out  His  own  fountain  of  life  and  in- 
telligence with  such  mental  powers  and 
such  a store  of  practical  knowledge  as  was 
necessary  to  the  struggle  for  existence,  with 
the  capacity  to  increase  such  intelligence 
within  a certain  specific  limit  by  experience 
and  memory.  As  thus  formed,  the  vital 
and  mental  powers  of  these  animals  con- 
stituted an  incorporeal  yet  substantial  or- 
ganism, the  counterpart  and  invisible  es- 
sence of  their  physical  and  tangible  struc- 
ture, thus  constituting  as  real  and  true  an 
entity  of  existence  as  is  the  substantial 
mental  and  vital  nature  of  God  himself, 
out  of  which  all  such  entities  issue  as  in- 
finitesimal drops. 

With  the  powers  thus  described  the 
Creative  Will  also  established  the  law  of 
procreation,  giving  the  capacity  of  trans- 
ferring to  offspring  not  only  a duplicate 
life-germ  which  should  contain  the  blended 
vital  and  mental  organism  of  both  parents, 
but  with  it  He  gave  them  power  to  trans- 
mit their  original  and  acquired  store  of  pa- 
rental knowledge. 

With  the  primal  creation  of  the  human 
pair,  the  mental  powers  and  a store  of 
practical  knowledge  were  likewise  given, 
but  without  the  capacity  of  transferring 
to  the  child  by  the  laws  of  generation  a 
single  idea  of  parental  knowledge , either 
original  or  acquired.  Instead  of  the  trans- 
fer bodily  of  parental  intelligence  to  the 
child  with  the  vital  and  mental  organism, 
as  in  the  case  of  lower  animals,  the  human 
parents  had  received  the  power  from  the 
Creative  Will  of  transferring  an  almost  un- 
limited blank  capacity  of  being  taught.  While 
the  human  pair  were  denied  the  power  of 
transferring  to  the  child  bodily  their  origi- 
nally inspired  and  acquired  knowledge, 
they  were  given  in  lieu  of  it  the  gift  of 
speech  and  the  capacity  and  desire  to  teach 
the  young,  and  in  this  way  only  to  transmit 
their  intelligence  from  one  generation  to 


4-7 

another.  While  the  lower  animals  have 
been  deprived  of  this  capacity  or  desire 
to  teach  their  young,  and  in  lieu  have  re- 
ceived the  power  of  transmitting  their  own 
knowledge  bodily  with  the  physical  and 
vital  organism,  the  young  are  equally  in- 
capable of  being  instructed  by  the  parents 
except  to  a very  limited  extent  by  obser- 
vation and  imitation,  but  depend  wholly 
upon  the  actual  supply  of  knowledge  which 
is  born  with  them,  and  which  we  have,  for 
the  want  cf  a better  word,  called  instinct. 

Here,  then,  is  the  real  difference  between 
the  man  and  brute, — between  human  in- 
telligence and  animal  instinct.  The  lower 
animal,  having  neither  the  capacity  nor 
desire  for  teaching  or  being  taught,  has 
received  from  the  Creator  instead  the 
power  of  transferring  and  receiving  from 
generation  to  generation,  inclosed  within 
the  vital  and  mental  organism,  the  com- 
plete stock  of  ancestral  knowledge.  A 
human  being,  on  the  contrary,  deprived  of 
the  capacity  of  thus  transmitting  or  re- 
ceiving a single  ancestral  idea,  has  been 
furnished  by  the  Creative  Will  with  the 
power  of  transferring  to  the  child  or  re- 
ceiving from  the  parent  such  a vital  and 
mental  entity  as  includes  the  full  capacity 
and  d-esise  for  both  t-eaching  and  being 
taught. 

And  thus  we  have  the  distinct  line  of 
demarkation  defined  and  clearly  drawn 
between  human  reason  and  animal  instinct. 
The  former  is  built  up,  step  by  step,  through 
instruction  constantly  accumulating  from 
higher  sources,  aided  by  man’s  almost  un- 
limited capacity  for  teaching  and  being 
taught,  while  the  latter  is  the  untaught 
and  unlearned  aggregate  knowledge  of  the 
race  since  its  primeval  origin,  transmitted 
bodily  to  offspring  with  their  mental  and 
vital  organisms. 

Hence,  as  an  illustration  of  this  differ- 
ence carried  into  practice,  let  a pup  be 


428 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


raised  to  maturity  or  even  old  age  without 
seeing  the  light  or  hearing  a sound,  and  it 
would  start  out  into  the  world  when  re- 
leased with  nearly  the  same  intelligence 
and  apparent  familiarity  with  objects  as 
ordinary  dogs  of  its  breed.  But  let  an  in- 
fant be  thus  raised  to  manhood,  and  it 
would  come  forth  to  the  light  a helpless 
idiot. 

Here,  then,  is  a problem  which  evolution 
can  neither  explain  nor  throw  the  least  ray 
of  light  upon.  Such  a difference  existing 
between  two  beings  sustaining  a near  blood 
relationship  to  each  other , as  we  are  assured 
is  the  case  by  Darwin  and  Huxley,  is  utterly 
inconceivable,  and  must  be  held  as  abso- 
lutely impossible.  That  man  should  have 
descended  from  animals  which  receive  all 
their  intelligence  in  a mass  at  birth,  while 
he,  so  nearly  related  and  yet  so  vastly  im- 
proved in  other  respects,  and  so  differen- 
tiated physically,  should  not  receive  a 
single  idea  of  congenital  intelligence,  must 
be  regarded  as  utterly  unreasonable  and 
absurd.  To  ignore  the  solution  I have 
given,  that  there  was  an  original  line  of 
demarkation  between  human  and  lower 
species  drawn  by  the  Creative  Will,  and  to 
assume,  as  do  evolutionists,  that  man  has 
actually  descended  from  animals  having 
such  wonderful  instinct  as  the  dog,  is  to 
repudiate  every  true  and  consistent  idea 
of  development,  and  reverse  the  whole 
theory  of  evolution.  Instead  of  evolving 
the  congenital  intelligence  or  instinct  of 
the  dog, and  developing  it  to  a higher  grade 
of  intuitive  knowledge,  as  natural  selection 
professes  to  accomplish,  it  has  finally  and 
utterly  annihilated  it  in  the  infant,  leaving 
not  even  a rudimentary  vestige  of  such 
instinct  remaining. 

No  one  can  deny  that  the  instinct  of  the 
lower  animal  is  useful,  and  would  have 
been  of  service  in  any  and  every  condition 
of  life.  Then  why  should  survival  of  the 


fittest  (!)  completely  destroy  it  in  develop- 
ing man  from  the  dog?  Suppose  the  in- 
fant born  now  had  all  the  instinctive  intel- 
ligence and  physical  strength  at  birth  of 
the  dog  added  to  its  unlimited  capacity 
for  being  taught,  would  not  such  develop- 
ment be  useful  to  man?  No  one  can 
doubt  it  for  a single  moment.  Then  how 
could  natural  selection  destroy  such  valu- 
able instinct  and  such  important  physical 
strength  in  the  young,  as  illustrated  in  the 
infant,  except  by  reversing  the  very  signi- 
fication of  evolution  and  survival  of  the 
fittest?  Natural  selection  has  not  only 
developed  (!)  the  infant  to  utter  helpless- 
ness and  weakness,  and  completely  de- 
prived it  of  every  instinctive  idea,  but,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory,  it  has  even 
taken  away  the  natural  covering  of  hair 
from  its  body,  without  which  it  must  in- 
stantly perish,  even  in  the  most  temperate 
climate, especially  at  night,  but  for  the  ac- 
quired knowledge  of  the  mother.  Yet  this 
stripping  the  infant  of  all  natural  clothing, 
which  would  have  always  been  of  service 
to  man  even  when  civilized,  depriving  it 
of  all  strength  of  body  and  limb,  taking 
away  from  it  every  vestige  of  instinctive 
knowledge,  all  of  which  its  near  ancestral 
young  relatives  possessed  in  a high  degree, 
is  called  by  these  advanced  scientific 
thinkers  evolution , development , and  survival 
of  the  fittest!  Really,  if  the  words  desig- 
nating this  theory  were  intended  to  corre- 
spond with  the  facts,  it  should  be  called 
retrogression , deterioration,  and  preservation 
of  the  weakest! 

As  the  condition  of  the  infant  is  in  every 
essential  respect  the  exact  opposite  of  that 
of  all  lower  animals  at  birth,  showing  a 
deterioration  in  every  physical  and  men- 
tal aspect  of  its  being,  it  amounts  to  a 
simple  and  clearly  defined  demonstration 
that  the  infant  never  descended  from  the 
dog  or  any  other  lower  animal.  Were  there 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  A rguments. 


4-9 


no  other  argument  against  the  theory  of 
man’s  descent  from  lower  forms  of  being, 
this  alone  should  annihilate  it,  since  the 
meaning  of  every  word  employed  by  evo- 
lutionists to  represent  such  descent  flatly 
conflicts  with  the  present  condition  of  the 
infant. 

But,  further, while  we  find  natural  selec- 
tion reducing  man  in  his  normal  physical 
and  mental  condition,  as  compared  to 
lower  animals,  to  a more  and  more  de- 
fenseless and  helpless  state,  taking  from 
him  every  vestige  of  his  former  instinctive 
knowledge,  and  even  stripping  him  of  his 
natural  clothing,  which  survival  of  the 
fittest  should  by  all  means  have  preserved 
and  augmented,  we  see  that  some  other 
power  has  had  him  in  hand,  entirely  above, 
beyond,  and  outside  of  natural  selection  or 
survival  of  the  fittest,  and  though  finding 
him  at  birth  the  most  defenseless  and  help- 
less being  in  the  entire  animal  kingdom, 
being  in  reality  less  fit  to  survive  than  any 
other,  it  has  so  preserved,  sustained,  and 
elevated  him  mentally,  and  even  physi- 
cally when  matured,  as  to  place  him  as 
much  above  the  most  powerful  animal  on 
earth  and  as  much  its  master  as  his  corpo- 
real frame  was  its  inferior  at  birth.  This 
power  can  not  be  evolution,  natural  selec- 
tion, or  survival  of  the  fittest.  These 
forces,  laws,  or  powers  had  him  in  hand, 
we  are  told,  and  developed  him  from  the 
dog  till  they  had  taken  away  from  him  his 
natural  clothing,  leaving  him  naked  and 
liable  to  perish.  They  tried  to  improve 
him,  according  to  Mr.  Darwin,  till  they 
had  robbed  him  of  all  his  instinctive 
knowledge,  leaving  him  insensate  and  a 
mental  blank  at  birth.  They  practiced 
survival  of  the  fittest  on  him  in  develop- 
ing him  from  the  opossum  till  he  lost  all 
his  physical  strength  and  became  so  help- 
less and  defenseless  that  he  was  the  most 
unfit  for  survival,  physically  or  mentally, 


at  birth,  of  all  living  creatures.  Will  evo- 
lutionists tell  us,  then,  what  power  is  this 
which  finds  man  at  the  foot  of  the  ladder 
in  physical  dependence,  lifts  him  up,  and 
makes  him  the  lord  and  head  of  the  animal 
kingdom  ? 

I will  now  show  the  contrast  between 
the  highly  satisfying  solution  just  given  of 
inherited  instinct,  and  the  difference  be- 
tween it  and  human  reason,  based  on  a 
recognition  of  the  Creative  Will  and  the 
dual  organism  of  every  living  creature, 
and  that  solution  which  Darwinism  has  to 
propose,  denying  Creative  Will  or  intelli- 
gent purpose,  and  ignoring  the  substantia) 
nature  of  the  life  and  mental  powers. 
Read  the  following  “solution”  of  the  same 
problems  to  which  I have  alluded,  as  ex- 
pounded by  Mr.  Darwin : — 

“The  development  of  the  mammary  glands  would 
have  been  of  no  service  and  could  not  have  been 
effected  through  natural  selection  unless  the  young 
at  the  same  time  were  able  to  partake  of  the  secre- 
tion. There  is  no  greater  difficulty  in  understand- 
ing how  young  mammals  learnt  to  suck  the  breast 
than  in  understanding  how  unhatched  chickens 
have  learnt  to  break  the  egg-shell  by  tapping  against 
it  with  their  specially  adapted  beaks;  or  how  a few 
hours  after  leaving  the  shell  they  have  learnt  to 
pick  up  grains  of  food.  In  such  cases  the  most 
probable  solution  seems  to  be  that  the  habit  was  at 
Jirst  acquired  by  practice  at  a more  advanced  age, 
and  afterwards  transmitted  to  the  offspring  at  an 
earlier  age." — Origin  of  Species,  p.  190. 

This  remarkable  “solution”  (!)  of  the 
problem  of  inherited  instinct  is  certainly 
worthy  of  the  author  of  “pangenesis,” 
and  is  about  as  brilliant  and  original  a 
conception  as  the  possible  conveyance  of 
“self-propagating  gemmules”down  through 
a million  generations  in  a “dormant”  con- 
dition. 

Strange  as  it  may  strike  the  reader,  Mr. 
Darwin  here  distinctly  teaches,  as  “the 
most  probable  solution,”  that  the  art  of 
tapping  at  the  egg-shell  by  the  chicken  to 
break  its  way  out,  as  well  as  the  “habit” 


430 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  hunting  for  grains  of  food  soon  after  its 
escape,  "was  at  first  acquired  by  practice  at 
a more  advanced  age , and  afterwards  trans- 
mitted to  t/ie  offspring  at  an  earlier  age." 
Now,  would  Mr.  Darwin  object  to  letting 
us  know  how  that  first  parent  of  the  first 
chicken, which  acquired  the  habit  of  pick- 
ing up  food  "by  practice”  at  an  “ advanced 
age,” in  order  to  transmit  it  to  the  offspring, 
managed  to  survive  its  infancy  without 
picking  up  food ? For,  mark  it,  that  parent 
was  without  the  knowledge  or  the  "habit,” 
till  it  had  been  “acquired”  “at  a more  ad- 
vanced age,"  since  being  the  first  one  it 
had  no  parent  to  “transmit”  such  habit! 
Also, while  he  is  explaining  this,  he  should 
tell  us  how  that  parent  of  the  chicken  at 
an  11  advanced  age"  “acquired  by  practice" 
the  habit  of  “ tapping"  at  the  egg-shell  and 
breaking  its  way  out!  According  to  Mr. 
Darwin’s  theory  there  was  no  creation  of 
the  parents  of  the  first  chicken,  and  no 
original  supply  of  intelligence  furnished 
them  by  the  Creative  Will  to  be  transferred 
to  the  mental  and  vital  organism  of  the 
young  ones  which  would  teach  them  how 
to  get  out  of  the  shell,  and  then  how  to 
pick  up  grains  of  food;  but  the  first  parent 
fowl,  being  developed  by  transmutation 
from  some  other  animal,  had  to  get  out  of 
the  egg-shell  as  best  it  could, since  it  could 
not  acquire  the  “habit”  of  “tapping”  to 
break  the  shell  till  by  “practice  at  a more 
advanced  age.”  When  he  shall  have  ex- 
plained how  this  original  parent-fowl  got 
out  of  the  shell  without  the  habit  of  “tap- 
ping,” which  it  could  not  possess  till  at  an 
advanced  age  by  practice,  and  then  how 
it  picked  up  food  to  live  on  while  young, 
I will  agree  to  be  satisfied,  and  not  ask 
him  how  the  first  parent  chicken  got  into 
the  shell  without  some  other  fowl  to  lay  the 
egg,  as  that  would  be  too  bad.  All  I will 
insist  on  at  present  is  the  main  solution 
he  attempts  to  give, — that  is,  how  the 


original  parent-fowl  learned  to  get  out  of 
the  shell  and  pick  up  grains  of  food  with- 
out the  “habit,”  which  could  only  be  “ac- 
quired,” as  he  supposes,  at  an  “advanced 
age”! 

1 hen,  as  the  reader  observes,  he  applies 
the  same  lucid  and  highly  satisfactory 
solution’  to  the  young  of  mammals,  and 
to  the  important  problem  as  to  how  they 
first  learned  to  suck  the  breast.  The  thing 
is  as  plain  as  can  be,  he  tells  us, — the 
“habit”  of  sucking  the  breast  is  as  simple 
as  for  a chicken  to  learn  how  to  get  out 
of  the  egg-shell,  and  was  “first  acquired 
by  practice  at  a more  advanced  age,  and 
afterwards  transmitted  to  the  offspring"! 
Now,  leaving  out  the  interesting  question 
as  to  what  the  first  or  original  mammal 
parent  practiced  on  in  learning  the  “habit” 
of  sucking  the  breast  at  an  “advanced  age  ” 
so  as  to  be  able  to  transmit  it  to  the  off- 
spring, I would  seriously  request  Mr.  Dar- 
win to  inform  us  how  that  first  mammal 
parent  grew  up  from  birth  to  an  “advanced 
age”  without  the  habit  of  sucking  the  breast, 
or  without  any  breast  to  suck,  for  that  mat- 
ter, especially  since  he  distinctly  teaches 
that  these  mammary  glands  are  “indispen- 
sable" for  the  “ existence ” of  young  mam- 
mals?— 

‘ ‘ The  mammary  glands  are  common  to  the  whole 
class  of  mammals,  and  are  indispensable  for  their 
existence.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.  189. 

Yet  he  would  have  his  readers  believe 
that  the  very  first  or  original  mammal 
parent,  which  had  never  been  created  but 
had  been  transmuted  from  a tortoise  or 
some  other  reptile,  grew  up  from  infancy 
without  sucking,  though  such  mammary 
glands  “are  indispensable  for  their  exist- 
ence,” and  that  when  it  had  arrived  at  an 
“advanced  age”  it  “practiced”  the  “habit” 
of  sucking,  when  there  was  no  other  mam- 
mal in  existence,  and  consequently  no 
breasts  to  suck,  in  order  to  be  able  to  trans- 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


43i 


mit  the  habit  to  its  future  offspring!  Was 
there  ever  a theory  so  ridiculously  and 
laughably  at  sea? 

I give  this  single  instance,  from  the 
founder  of  the  system  himself,  as  an  illus- 
tration of  the  pitiable  predicament  in  which 
an  evolutionist  finds  himself  placed  when- 
ever he  attempts  to  account  for  the  sim- 
plest phenomena  of  inheritance,  propaga- 
tion, or  transmitted  instinct,  by  the  theory 
of  natural  selection  and  organic  transmu- 
tation. But  Mr.  Darwin  is  a great  man  and 
has  acquired  a great  name,  yet  I doubt 
whether  even  this  prestige  will  be  sufficient 
to  gloss  such  self-stultifying  and  monstrous 
absurdities  as  these,  after  they  are  placed 
fairly  before  the  public. 

How  evidently,  therefore,  does  the  truth 
recur  to  us  at  each  turn  of  the  inquiry  that 
no  merely  physical  view  of  organism  can 
give  any  satisfaction  in  regard  to  the  num- 
berless problems  growing  out  of  inherited 
transmissions?  The  great  truth,  in  so  many 
ways  confirmed  since  the  commencement 
of  this  chapter,  that  within  each  sentient 
corporeal  structure  there  exists  its  exact 
substantial  counterpart  in  the  form  of  an 
intangible  vital  and  mental  organism,  has 
rationally  prepared  the  way  for  the  provi- 
sional hypothesis  which  I have  already 
partially  elaborated.  I do  not  claim  that 
the  idea  of  an  incorporeal  life-germ  as  the 
concentrated  nucleolus  of  being,  given  off 
from  the  vital  and  mental  organisms  of 
both  parents  and  constituting  a living  mi- 
crocosm, has  been  proved,  though  it  clearly 
does  not  conflict  with  any  known  law  or 
fact  of  science,  while  it  does  beautifully 
and  consistently  harmonize  with  and  lu- 
cidly explain  many  phenomena  utterly  in- 
explicable by  evolution  or  any  other  theory, 
as  will  now  be  shown. 

That  an  individual  vital  and  mental  mi- 
crocosm exists  in  and  takes  possession  of  j 
the  ovule  at  the  start  of  each  individual 


1 life,  and  that  such  a microcosmic  life-germ 
really  though  invisibly  embraces  and  con- 
tains every  substantial  organ  or  part  of  the 
specific  being  into  which  such  ovule  is  to 
develop,  I regard  as  an  absolute  necessity, 
and  abundantly  proved,  as  otherwise,  since 
the  physical  ovules  of  all  animals  are  alike, 
they  should  all  differentiate  into  one  and 
the  same  animal  form,  if  they  could  de- 
velop at  all.  Then,  if  an  individual  micro- 
cosm can  and  does  exist  within  each  life- 
germ  of  being  pervading  the  ovule,  and  by 
whose  action  alone  a concentration  and 
orderly  arrangement  of  corporeal  atoms 
are  brought  to  bear  and  disposed  to  build 
up  the  anatomy  of  the  embryonic  creature, 
is  it  not  reasonable  that  such  an  essential 
germ  of  being  might  also  embrace  a mi- 
crocosmic assemblage  of  all  intrinsic  life- 
forms?  If  such  an  assemblage  of  life-forms 
is  supposable,  then  their  substantial  pres- 
ence in  the  primal  germ  would  be  as  real 
as  the  self-propagating  organisms  assumed 
in  the  microcosm  of  Mr.  Darwin,  which, 
though  physical  and  assumed  to  each  oc- 
cupy a certain  amount  of  space  or  room, 
are  nevertheless  supposed  to  be  as  “nu- 
merous as  the  stars  of  heaven.” 

Now, it  is  but  a very  short  step  to  extend 
my  hypothesis,  and  suppose  that  within  each 
microcosm  the  one  specific  form  of  being 
which  represents  the  family  of  organisms 
to  which  any  given  life-germ  belongs,  is 
the  presiding  or  governing  genius  of  the 
little  assemblage  or  universe  of  life-forms, 
and  which  must  in  the  very  organic  nature 
of  things  determine  or  control  the  develop- 
mental operations  and  the  organic  process, 
giving  the  final  direction  to  the  vital  forces 
of  the  mother’s  organism,  till  the  ovule,  in 
which  the  specific  forms  and  characters  of 
the  two  parents  are  equally  divided,  takes 
the  complete  outline  of  the  reproduced 
1 being. 

Should,  howrever,  any  unusual  shock  or 


432 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


perturbation  of  the  mother’s  vital  and 
mental  organism  occur  in  the  early  periods 
of  gestation,  accompanied  by  any  abrupt 
physical  concussion,  to  which  she  may  be 
at  any  time  liable,  it  would  not  be  unrea- 
sonable to  suppose,  from  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  her  and  the  life-germ,  that 
the  one  specific  controlling  form  which 
corresponds  to  that  of  the  father  and 
mother,  juxtaposited  and  involved  with  the 
thousands  of  other  forms  constituting  the 
microcosmic  assemblage,  might  come  into 
collision  with  some  other  specific  represen- 
tative and  thus  take  from  it  by  contact  the 
impression  of  some  monstrous  organ  or 
mental  peculiarity,  now  regarded  by  evolu- 
tionists as  reversions  to  distant  ancestral 
structures.  If  physical  shocks  can  displace 
and  derange  corporeal  organisms,  may  not 
vital  and  mental  perturbations  distort  the 
vital  organism  within  the  life-germ, causing 
some  abnormity  or  so-called  reversion  to 
become  attached  to  the  embryo? 

Here,  then,  I reach  the  culmination  of 
my  provisional  hypothesis,  that  the  tails  of 
reptiles,  gills  of  fishes,  and  other  appear- 
ances of  low  organic  forms  seen  in  the 
early  embryos  of  all  vertebrate  animals, 
result  from  the  manner  of  arrangement  and 
the  peculiar  order  of  juxtaposition  in  which 
the  microcosmic  forms  take  their  places 
within  the  life-germ,  which  necessarily 
cause  certain  forms,  organs,  or  types  of 
specific  structure,  to  stand  out  in  the  early 
embryo  more  prominently  than  others, — 
which,  however,  are  soon  displaced  and 
relegated  to  invisibility  by  the  controlling 
germ  of  the  parent  form,  which  supplants 
all  other  appearances,  and  leads  on  the 
embryo  to  its  final  congenital  shape  and 
specific  outline. 

If  there  is  any  truth  in  this  microcosmic 
assemblage  of  intangible  life-forms,  which 
I was  rationally  invited  to  assume  by  Mr. 
Darwin’s  much  more  improbable  micro- 


cosm of  physical  organisms,  it  would  not 
be -beyond  the  limit  of  probable  inference 
that  some  sort  of  specific  or  generic  affinity 
might  exist  even  among  the  representative 
forms  constituting  this  “little  universe” of 
incorporeal  being;  that  is  to  say,  there 
might  exist  a more  intimate  attraction  be- 
tween species  nearly  allied  in  the  graduated 
scale  of  their  form  and  structure  than  be- 
tween those  vastly  unlike  in  specific  or 
anatomical  outline.  Thus  it  might  be  sup- 
posed in  reason  that  the  human  life-form 
and  that  of  the  quadrumana,  being  more 
intimately  connec  ed  in  their  creative  an- 
atomical graduation  than  either  with  any 
other  vertebrate  form,  would  possess  a vital 
affinity  in  the  microcosmic  assemblage  not 
existing  among  more  distantly  related  spe- 
cies. I thus  use  the  word  related  as  only 
embracing  that  semblance  of  being  result- 
ing alone  from  creative  graduation  as  to 
anatomical  type. 

This  supposed  affinity  would  tend  to 
cause  either  of  two  such  specific  forms  thus 
related  to  take  on  the  appearance  of  each 
other  more  readily  than  would  two  more 
distantly  related;  though  not  without 
marked  exceptions  to  the  rule,  from  the 
effects  of  those  collisions  I have  just 
spoken  of  caused  by  the  perturbations  and 
shocks  of  the  mother,  which,  as  seen,  could 
easily  cause  an  infant  to  take  some  organic 
deformity  resembling  the  structure  of  a 
marsupial  or  of  a wolf.  On  account  of 
this  affinity  coming  thus  from  creative 
graduation,  it  may  readily  be  supposed 
that  the  horse  genus  would  more  likely 
assume  the  color  or  stripes  of  the  quagga 
or  zebra  by  so-called  reversions  than  it 
would  adopt  the  spots  of  the  leopard.  So 
dovecote  pigeons  would  more  naturally, 
from  their  affinity,  divert  to  the  color  of 
the  wild-rock  pigeon  than  to  that  of  the 
robbin  or  blackbird,  owing  to  the  great 
similarity  in  anatomical  type. 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  A rguments. 


433 


That  such  diversions  in  color  take  place 
more  frequently  as  the  result  of  specific 
crosses,  which  so  astonishes  Mr.  Darwin, 
is  not  a surprising  matter  if  we  consider 
the  nature  of  such  a supposed  vital  micro- 
cosm, when  the’ controlling  life-form  must 
as  nearly  as  possible  represent  both  species, 
since  it  is  necessarily  that  life-form  which 
gives  direction  to  the  developing  ovule  and 
guides  the  evolving  embryonic  structure. 
So  long  as  the  specific  mental  and  vital 
elements  of  father  and  mother,  combining 
to  make  up  the  life-germ  which  is  to  vitalize 
the  embryo,  shall  be  in  harmonious  accord, 
as  in  the  case  of  true  species,  so  long  will 
the  germ  thus  produced  proceed  in  its 
normal  and  orderly  way  to  gradually  take 
possession  of  and  give  direction  to  the 
ovule;  but  let  this  governing  life-form  be 
constituted  by  a whirl  of  opposing  and 
conflicting  life-elements,  which  shall  form 
a mongrel  or  hybrid  life-germ,  as  when 
species  or  even  varieties  are  intercrossed, 
and  the  germ  is  necessarily  thrown  into  a 
state  of  confusion,  and  naturally  might  be 
assumed  to  come  into  many  partial  colli- 
sions with  the  life-forms  nearest  in  ana- 
tomical relationship,  and  therefore  most 
nearly  its  own  affinity,  thereby  brushing  up 
such  shades  of  color  as  those  noticed  in 
horses  and  pigeons,  and  such  texture  of 
epidermis  as  would  even  cause  an  abnor- 
mal fiber  in  the  hair  and  feathers. 

The  sterility  of  hybrids  when  inter- 
crossed, as  in  the  case  of  mules  and  hinnies, 
is  caused  by  the  same  confusion  into  which 
the  governing  life-form  is  thrown  as  just 
noticed  at  the  cross  of  species,  such  con- 
fusion being  augmented  by  the  repeated 
violation  of  specific  unity,  causing  such  a 
conflict  in  the  microcosm  and  such  a pro- 
longed whirl  of  collisions  that  the  control- 
ling life-germ  becomes  exhausted  and  J 
aborted.  Nature  can  thus  bear  one  insult,  ! 
but  will  not  allow  of  its  repetition.  J 


The  well-known  sterility  of  most  wild 
animals  in  confinement,  even  when  food 
and  shelter  are  all  which  could  be  required, 
is  clearly  and  rationally  the  result  of  men- 
tal and  vital  perturbation,  the  deprivation 
of  freedom  so  acting  on  the  governing  life- 
germ  in  the  microcosm,  through  the  men- 
tal depression  of  the  parents,  as  to  cause  a 
depressing  effect  even  upon  the  germ,  and 
such  a loss  of  energy  as  to  paralyze  its  ex- 
ertions, and  thus  to  neutralize  its  power 
over  the  ovule.  The  same  effect  from 
mental  perturbation  is  seen  with  different 
tribes  of  people  when  overpowered  by  a 
stronger  race,  which  so  acts  on  their  love 
of  freedom  from  encroachment  on  their 
national  pride  as  to  render  them  sterile, 
thus  in  time  leading  to  their  extinction. 
The  life-germ,  even  when  the  vital  ele- 
ments of  the  parents  are  united,  is  so  de- 
pressed by  the  mental  anxiety  and  conflict 
of  the  vital  and  mental  organisms  of  the 
father  and  mother,  that  it  has  not  the 
strength  and  persistence  requisite  to  cause 
the  primal  differentiation  of  the  ovule. 
Nations  have  been  known  to  commence  at 
once  fading  out  through  sterility  as  soon 
as  overpowered  by  a stronger  race.  Our 
Indians  are  a startling  proof  of  this,  and 
will  soon  be  among  the  historic  but  extinct 
races  of  the  earth,  alone  from  the  cause  I 
have  just  given.  The  physical  laws  of  de- 
scent are  wholly  unable  to  give  any  solu- 
tion of  the  problems  here  named. 

I shall  not  dwell  in  detail  as  to  the  bear- 
ing of  my  hypothesis  on  these  various 
phases  of  embryologic  and  reversionary 
phenomena,  though  the  beauty  of  incor- 
poreal yet  substantial  life-germs  and  the 
mental  and  vital  organisms  I have  as- 
sumed, with  an  intangible  but  real  micro- 
cosm constituted  of  all  specific  fife-forms, 
would  warrant  me  in  extending  the  expla- 
nation to  the  solution  of  every  observed 
phenomenon.  While  my  hypothesis,  if  its 


434 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


basis  of  a vital  microcosm  be  once  ac- 
cepted, explains  rationally  and  clearly  all 
the  problems  and  facts  raised  by  Darwin’s 
theory  of  descent,  his  assumptions  fall 
utterly  short  of  giving  a satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  even  the  simplest  circum- 
stance connected  with  inherited  transmis- 
sions. Take,  for  example,  the  cases  of 
dovecote  pigeons  reverting  to  the  color  of 
the  wild-rock  pigeon  and  of  the  horse  to 
the  stripes  of  the  zebra.  The  settled  laws 
of  physiology  utterly  prohibit  and  forever 
bar  Darwin’s  hypothesis  of  descent  by 
transmutation  as  a solution  of  these  facts. 
Yet  he  relies  upon  these  so-called  rever- 
sions as  invulnerable  proof  of  his  theory. 
Read  the  following: — 

“Now  what  are  we  to  say  to  these  several  facts? 
We  see  several  distinct  species  of  the  horse  genus 
becoming  by  simple  variation  striped  on  the  legs 
like  a zebra  or  striped  on  the  shoulders  like  an  ass. 

. . . We  see  this  tendency  to  become  striped  most 
strongly  displayed  in  hybrids  from  between  several 
of  the  most  distinct  species.  . . . Now  observe  the 
case  of  the  several  breeds  of  pigeons:  they  are  de- 
scended from  a pigeon  of  a bluish  color,  with  cer- 
tain bars  and  other  marks;  and  when  any  breed 
assumes  by  simple  variation  a bluish  tint,  these 
bars  and  other  marks  invariably  re-appear.  . . . 
When  the  oldest  and  truest  breeds  of  various  colors 
are  crossed,  sue  see  a strong  tendency  for  the  blue  tim 
and  bars  and  marks  to  re-appear  in  the  mongrels. 
I have  stated  that  the  most  probable  hypothesis  to 
account  for  the  appearance  of  very  ancient  charac- 
ters, is,  that  there  is  a tendency  in  the  young  of  each 
successive  generation  to  produce  the  long-lost  charac- 
ter, and  that  this  tendency  from  unknown  causes 
sometimes  prevails.” — “If  we  admit  that  these 
races  [of  pigeons]  have  all  descended  from  C.Livia, 
no  breeder  will  doubt  that  the  occasional  appear- 
ance of  blue  birds  thus  characterized  is  accounted 
for  on  the  well-known  principle  of  'throwing  back,' 
or  reversion.  Why  crossing  should  give  so  strong  a 
tendency  to  reversion  we  do  not  with  certainty  know." 

“For  myself,  I venture  confidently  to  look  back 
, thousands  on  thousands  of  generations,  and  I see  an 
animal  striped  like  a zebra,  but  perhaps  otherwise 
very  differently  constructed,  the  common  parent  of 
our  domestic  horse,  of  the  ass,  the  hemionus,quagga, 
and  zebra." — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  p.  130. 
Animals  and  Plants,  vol.  i.,  p.  245. 


Mr.  Darwin  venturing  “to  look  back 
thousands  on  thousands  of  generations” 
for  an  explanation  of  horses  becoming 
striped  and  pigeons  becoming  tinted  with 
blue  and  bars,  is  not  at  all  surprising.  His 
whole  theory  is  a fearful  “venture”  of  the 
imagination  from  beginning  to  end.  Now, 
I need  not  add  a single  paragraph  here  in 
order  to  annihilate  this  last-named  venture 
as  to  the  reversion  of  horses  back  “ thou- 
sands on  thousands  of  generations,”  or 
pigeons  for  an  equal  number  of  genera- 
tions back  to  the  C.  Livia.  I only  refer 
the  reader  to  that  terrible  line  of  figures 
(page  223)  and  the  accompanying  argu- 
ments, in  which  the  impossibility  of  rever- 
sions is  so  clearly  demonstrated.  No  evo- 
lutionist can  answer  those  arguments  nor 
that  fatal  line  of  figures,  and  I now  make 
the  assertion  that  no  one  will  even  try  to 
answer  them.  Those  arguments  and  fig- 
ures apply  with  equal  force  against  these 
reversions  of  the  horse  and  the  pigeon  to 
ancient  ancestors.  To  think  of  question- 
ing the  arguments  and  figures  there  pre- 
sented would  be  to  deny  the  very  founda- 
tion-law of  physiology,  namely,  that  every 
organic  being  is  continually  undergoing 
mutation  and  substitution  in  all  its  parts 
and  material  atoms  and  that  at  no  distant 
date  can  it  possess  a particle  of  its  former 
corporeal  substance. 

If,  therefore,  the  explanation  of  these 
so-called  reversions  given  by  my  pro- 
visional hypothesis  is  not  the  true  one,  we 
are  surely  in  the  dark,  and  without  any 
explanation  at  all;  for  while  mine  remains 
a possible  solution,  Mr.  Darwin’s  is  abso- 
lutely demonstrated  to  be  impossible. 

That  my  hypothesis  can  furnish  a ra- 
tional or  even  possible  solution  of  these 
otherwise  inexplicable  problems  of  embry- 
ology and  so-called  reversionary  action, 
depends  entirely  on  the  correctness  of  the 
two  positions  before  argued:  firstly, if  there 


Chap.  VIII. 


Evolution.— Its  Strongest  Arguments : 


435 


is  in  every  living  creature  an  incorporeal 
vital  and  mental  organism  as  the  counter- 
part of  the  physical ; and  secondly, whether 
each  life-germ  or  nucleolus  of  such  intan- 
gible organism  may  be  rationally  supposed 
to  represent  a vital  microcosm  or  assem- 
blage of  universal  life-forms.  The  first 
position — the  existence  of  a substantial 
vital  and  mental  organism  in  each  living 
creature,  as  real  as  its  anatomical  struc- 
ture— has  been  proved  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a scientific  doubt ; while  the  sec- 
ond position  — the  actual  presence  of  a 
microcosm  or  a little  universe  of  vital  or- 
ganisms within  each  life-germ — I may  in- 
sist on  as  fully  warran  ed  by  the  assump- 
tion of  Mr.  Darwin  in  claiming  the  pres- 
ence of  a microcosm  of  physical  “ self- 
propagating  organisms”  “numerous  as  the 
stars  of  heaven”  within  “each  living  crea- 
ture,” however  infinitesimally  small.  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  my  provisional 
hypothesis  of  a microcosmic  assemblage 
of  life-forms  as  present  in  each  embryonic 
life-germ,  considered  by  itself,  I am  per- 
fectly willing  to  let  it  go  on  record  by  the 
side  of  the  corporeal  microcosm  of  Mr. 
Darwin,  and  challenge  comparison.  If  the 
ovules  of  different  animals  are  really  alike 
physically,  as  all  evolutionists  teach,  then 
it  follows  as  a necessity  that  invisibly 
within  each  ovule  there  must  exist  the 
perfect  life-form  of  the  specific  organism 
into  which  the  ovule  differentiates;  and 
if  one  life-form  can  so  exist  in  all  its  parts, 
it  is  but  a rational  extension  of  this  fact 
to  include  the  vital  and  representative 
microcosm  I have  supposed. 

The  various  explanations  I have  given 
of  phenomena  which  are  wholly  inex- 
plicable on  the  hypothesis  of  physical 
descent  by  transmutation,  and  the  harmo- 
nious blending  of  various  facts  of  science 
when  viewed  as  the  outgrowth  of  the  de- 
monstrated vital  and  mental  though  in- 


corporeal organism  of  each  living  crea- 
ture, would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  give  a 
reasonable  probability  to  my  supposition 
of  a vital  microcosm  and  the  various  solu- 
tions I deduce  therefrom.  That  the  future 
line  of  argument  and  reasoning  to  be 
adopted  in  explaining  other  phenomena, 
such  as  rudimentary  organs,  will  tend  to 
confirm  this  view,  and  further  demonstrate 
the  absolute  certainty  of  an  incorporeal 
yet  substantial  mental  and  vital  organism 
in  every  living  creature,  will  be  abundantly 
apparent  to  the  reader  as  we  proceed. 

Summary  of  the  Argument. 

I will  now  in  a few  briefly  condensed 
paragraphs  run  over  the  arguments  of  this 
chapter,  and  see  in  what  position  they  ap- 
parently leave  evolution. 

r.  As  a permanent  basis  for  all  explana- 
tions of  the  problems  raised  by  Darwin,  it 
has  been  shown  from  several  considera- 
tions that  the  external  or  corporeal  struc- 
ture of  any  organic  being  is  but  a tithe  of 
its  real  and  substantial  existence, — that 
the  life  and  mental  powers  of  each  living 
creature  constitute  an  incorporeal  yet  sub- 
stantial organism  as  real  as  is  its  anatom- 
ical structure,  and  of  which  its  physical 
form  is  but  the  external  type  or  visible 
expression.  Hence,  it  follows  that  to  this 
substantial  vital  and  mental  organism  we 
must  really  refer  all  the  varied  biological 
and  vital  phenomena  witnessed  in  Nature. 

2.  This  hypothesis  of  a mental  and  vital 
organism,  so  sweeping  and  revolutionary 
in  its  character,  was  demonstrated  scien- 
tifically by  two  direct  proofs.  The  first 
one  consisted  in  the  fact,  as  shown  from 
high  authorities,  that  there  can  be  no  such 
a thing  as  transmission  of  inherited  char- 
acters from  generation  to  generation 
through  physical  organism,  since  all  the 
corporeal  constituents  of  a living  creature 
are  necessarily  displaced  and  substituted 


436 


The  Problem  of  H itman  Life . 


by  new  materials  about  once  in  seven  years, 
more  or  less,  thus  breaking  down  the  bridge 
of  physical  inheritance  and  making  it  ab- 
solutely impossible  for  transmissions  to 
take  place  at  all  through  corporeal  blood 
and  structure.  Hence,  as  was  thus  shown, 
it  must  follow  that  atavism  as  well  as  the 
transmission  of  characters  from  parents  to 
children  must  proceed  alone  through  the 
intangible  vital  and  mental  structure  of 
each  specific  being,  or  it  could  not  take  place 
at  all.  The  second  direct  proof  of  such  a 
substantial  entity  of  being  was  drawn  from 
the  fact,  that,  while  a child  resembles  its 
father  as  much  as  it  does  its  mother,  yet 
only  about  a thousandth  part  of  its  corporeal 
organism  can  come  from  its  father , showing 
unequivocally  that  the  child’s  inherited 
characters  both  of  body  and  mind  are  de- 
rived exclusively  from  the  incorporeal  vital 
and  mental  organisms  of  both  parents, 
while  their  physical  structures  are  only  the 
visible  conducting  media  through  which 
the  transmissions  take  place,  just  as  a wire 
is  the  corporeal  medium  through  which  a 
message  reaches  us,  while  electricity  is  the 
incorporeal  but  substantial  agent  by  which 
the  transmission  is  effected. 

3.  It  is  a patent  fact  that  no  evolutionist 
has  ever  intimated  such  a possibility  as  a 
dual  organism  constituting  each  living 
creature,  and  hence  the  manifest  perplexity 
and  bewilderment  exhibited  by  Mr.  Darwin 
throughout  his  writings  in  regard  to  the 
transmission  of  an  instinct  or  an  acquired 
habit,  as  in  the  case  of  the  retriever,  which, 
being  taught  to  fetch  and  carry,  transmits 
the  same  mental  habit  to  the  pup,  which 
will  immediately  fetch  and  carry  without 
being  taught.  Mr.  Darwin  frankly  admits 
it  an  inexplicable  mystery  on  his  theory  of 
descent  through  physical  structure  (which 
is,  of  course,  all  he  recognizes,  and  all  of 
which  he  has  ever  formed  even  the  re- 
motest conception,)  while  he  implores  the 


reader  for  even  an  “ imperfect"  answer  to 
this  question.  Yet  my  hypothesis  gives  at 
once  a satisfactory  and  perfect  answer. 
The  reader  must  agree  with  Mr.  Darwin 
that  no  answer  can  be  given  on  the  basis 
of  physical  organism,  and  hence  the  only 
solution  is  on  the  demonstrated  hypothesis 
that  the  retriever  transmits  his  mental 
habit  to  the  pup,  as  all  other  mental  and 
bodily  characters  are  transmitted,  through 
his  intangible  and  substantial  vital  and 
mental  organism,  which  constitutes  the  es- 
sential portion  of  every  living  creature. 

4.  Mr.  Darwin’s  great  argument, based  on 
reversionary  action  through  the  retention 
of  a small  fraction  of  remote  ancestral 
blood,  has  been  examined,  and  his  sup- 
posed reversions  in  human  beings  to  the 
organic  structure  of  ancient  marsupials 
have  been  shown  to  be  absurdly  impossible 
by  a table  of  figures  which  must  overwhelm 
any  sane  mind  with  the  magnitude  and 
enormity  of  the  fallacy.  I shall  only  here 
refer  the  reader  back  to  that  table  (page 
223)  as  sufficiently  crushing  to  overthrow 
a theory  having  a million  times  more  prob- 
ability to  sustain  it.  But,  in  addition  to 
that  table  and  its  fatal  effects,  I produced 
a clear  demonstration  that  no  reversion 
could  take  place  even  two  generations 
back,  according  to  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  of 
physical  descent.  This  demonstration  was 
accomplished  by  applying  the  conclusive 
argument  just  summarized,  that  the  cor- 
poreal ingredients  in  every  mature  human 
being  now  living  have  been  supplanted 
and  substituted  many  times  since  birth  by 
entirely  new  materials  gathered  from  or- 
ganic and  inorganic  nature.  Hence,  this 
great  and  powerful  argument  based  on  re- 
versions is  thus  wrenched  summarily  from 
the  hands  of  evolution,  while  the  astound- 
ing fact  is  brought  to  the  surface  that  the 
true  theory  and  cause  of  inherited  trans- 
missions have  never  been,  understood  by  physi- 


CHAr.  VIII. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


437 


ologists!  Does  this  seem  egotistical?  If 
so,  I can’t  help  it;  for  just  as  certain  as 
an  invisible  vital  and  mental  organism  in- 
closed within  and  represented  by  the 
physical  structure,  in  all  animals,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  is  necessary  to  the 
transmission  of  characters  from  parents 
to  offspring  (which  is  here  distinctly  as- 
sumed for  the  first  time),  just  so  certain 
has  the  whole  science  of  physiology  been 
floundering  in  the  dark  upon  this  subject 
from  the  very  dawn  of  science  up  to  the 
present  time.  The  future  will  tell  whether 
I am  justified  in  this  sweeping  assertion  or 
not.  I firmly  believe  it,  and  hence  fear- 
lessly proclaim  it  to  the  world. 

5.  Embryology  has  also  been  taken  up 
and  treated  in  the  same  summary  manner. 
The  tails  of  reptiles  and  gills  or  pharyn- 
geal arches  of  the  fish,  seen  in  the  early 
embryos  of  all  vertebrate  animals,  are  re- 
garded as  forming  one  of  the  strongest,  if 
not  the  very  strongest,  arguments  known 
in  support  of  evolution.  I have  shown 
that  these  phenomena  come  within  the 
same  class  of  facts  as  those  of  reversionary 
action,  depending  on  a remnant  of  ances- 
tral blood  if  from  physical  descent;  and 
hence  that  the  same  arguments  which  so 
signally  disposed  of  reversions,  including 
that  fatal  line  of  figures,  would  bear  with 
equal  force  against  this  embryonic  argu- 
ment, and  demonstrate  that  the  appear- 
ance of  tails  and  branchiae  in  human  em- 
bryos can  not  by  any  possibility  be  traced 
back  to  ancestral  tortoise  and  fish.  Thus, 
by  a single  consideration  this  hitherto  in- 
vincible argument  is  swept  away. 

6.  But  not  resting  with  the  overthrow  of 
the  argument,  the  tables  have  been  effec- 
tually turned  against  its  inventors;  and 
from  their  own  plates,  illustrating  the  sim- 
ilarity of  all  vertebrate  embryos,  it  has 
been  shown  that  the  tortoise  must  have  de- 
scended from  man , if  there  is  any  truth  in 


the  mode  of  reasoning  adopted  by  evolu- 
tionists,— since  Professor  Haeckel’s  inge- 
nious engravings,  while  carefully  placing 
a tortoise-tail  on  the  human  embryo,  have 
unwittingly  put  a human  head  on  the  em- 
bryonic tortoise!  Thus,  by  all  the  logic 
of  evolution  we  may  publish  to  the  scien- 
tific world  that  this  chelonian  testudo  is  a 
veritable  and  lineal  descendant,  through 
unnumbered  species  of  emys  and  fresh- 
water snapping-turtles,  of  that  most  com- 
pletely differentiated  order  of  mammals 
called  man!  No  doubt  this  wonderful  in- 
stance of  retrograde  transmutation  and 
development  backward  originally  took  the 
idea  of  his  cataphractic  carapace  from  the 
impenetrable  skull  of  some  ancient  evolu- 
tionist ! By  this  important  discovery  in 
examining  Haeckel’s  plates,  having  a tor- 
toise-tail attached  to  the  human  embryo 
and  a human  head  placed  on  that  of  the 
tortoise,  the  embryologieal  argument  be- 
comes just  as  much  stronger  against  evo- 
lution than  for  it  as  the  head  of  an  animal 
is  more  important  than  its  tail  as  a classi- 
ficatory  guide. 

7.  The  constantly  reiterated  fact  that 
the  ovules  of  all  vertebrate  animals,  from 
man  down,  are  exactly  alike,  and  which,  as 
Mr.  Darwin  repeats  it,  “differ  in  no  re- 
spect” from  each  other,  has  also  been  ex- 
amined and  shown  to  completely  over- 
throw evolution,  based  as  it  is  and  as  it 
must  be  on  physical  descent  alone;  for 
since  corporeal  germs  or  ovules  are  exactly 
the  same  in  all  animals,  and  since  there  is 
no  such  a thing  recognized  or  dreamt  of 
by  evolutionists  as  a substantial  incorpo- 
real vital  germ  controlling  crgmic  devel- 
opment, it  follows  inevitably  that  a cat 
would  be  just  as  liable  to  produce  a rac- 
coon or  a rabbit  as  to  bring  forth  a crea- 
ture having  feline  organism ! The  very 
fact  that  the  ovules  of  all  animals  are  alike 
physically  utterly  annihilates  Mr.  Darwin’s 


438 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


theory  of  corporeal  descent,  since  by  no 
physical  laws  could  such  similar  ovules 
differentiate  into  diverse  specific  forms, 
such  as  alligator  and  elephant,  kangaroo 
and  reindeer.  It  therefore  becomes  mani- 
festly a scientific  demonstration  in  favor 
of  my  hypothesis  that  within  each  corpo- 
real germ  or  ovule  there  must  exist,  at  the 
commencement  of  each  individual  life, 
through  the  vital  union  of  the  two  parents, 
a real  life-germ  embodying  their  united 
mental  and  vital  organism,  which  alone 
can  give  direction  to  the  corporeal  ovule 
and  determine  the  specific  form  of  the 
embryo  which  it  shall  produce.  Little,  in- 
deed, did  evolutionists  think  when  labo- 
riously prosecuting  their  anatomical  re- 
searches to  authenticate  the  unanswerable 
scientific  fact,  and  bring  it  to  bear  in  for- 
tifying evolution,  that  “man  is  developed 
from  an  ovule  . . . which  differs  in  no  respect 
from  the  ovules  of  other  animals,”  that  in  so 
doing  they  were  weaving  the  web  which 
should  ultimately  become  the  winding- 
sheet  of  evolution. 

8.  Darwin’s  provisional  hypothesis  called 
“Pangenesis” — a desperate  effort  to  invent 
something  to  bridge  over  the  physical  hia- 
tus between  generations,  and  something 
which  will  take  the  place  of  destructively 
diluted  ancestral  blood  and  make  corpo- 
real transmissions  and  reversions  possible — 
has  been  briefly  examined,  and  shown  to 
be  wholly  worthless.  The  “gemmules,” 
which  his  hypothesis  supposes  to  descend 
from  generation  to  generation,  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  “dormant”  while  thus  de- 
scending, or  until  roused  into  action  by 
some  “unknown  conditions”;  and  hence 
they  are  no  better  and  no,  more  liable  to 
be  transmitted  from  age  to  age  than  other 
corporeal  atoms  of  matter,  which  are  dis- 
placed and  substituted  many  times  during  I 
the  life  of  a human  being.  This  is  Mr. 
Darwin’s  only  attempt  to  span  the  bridge- 


less chasms  which  each  generation  must 
accumulate  for  physical  descent.  The  at- 
tempt has  proved  a signal  failure.  With- 
out these  “gemmules”  there  is  no  physical 
atom,  as  the  best  authorities  establish, 
which  can  continue  unsubstituted  by  other 
ingredients,  and  Darwin  is  too  shrewd  a 
scientist  not  to  have  known  it.  Hence  the 
invention  of  gemmules  to  supply  this  de- 
ficiency. Yet,  strange  to  say,  by  making 
them  descend  in  a “dormant”  condition 
he  completely  stultifies  his  own  intention, 
and  tears  down  the  temple  with  one  hand 
which  he  is  trying  to  erect  with  the  other; 
for  a “dormant”  gemmule,  if  such  a thing 
has  an  existence,  being  useless  for  nutrition 
or  unconvertible  into  blood,  would  be 
wholly  worthless  in  the  body  of  any  animal, 
and  would  at  once  be  cast  off  by  this  law 
of  change  and  substitution  as  waste  or  ex- 
crementitious  matter.  Being  “dormant,” 
they  are  of  course  inactive,  and  incapable  of 
procreation  by  self-division  till  that  pe- 
riod in  the  far  distant  future  when  some 
“unknown  conditions”  rouse  them  into 
action.  Hence,  they  are  no  more  efficient 
as  bridge-materials  to  span  the  myriads  of 
chasms  in  physical  inheritance  than  so 
much  lifeless  bone  or  dirt.  Darwin’s  great 
project  of  Pangenesis,  therefore,  turns  out 
to  be  an  inglorious  and  pitiable  abortion, 
and  may  be  quietly  relegated  to  the  silent 
limbo  of  self-stultified  and  exploded  specu- 
lations. 

9.  Finally,  I have  undertaken  to  frame 
an  hypothesis  by  which  to  account  for  re- 
versionary action  and  the  phenomena  of 
embryology.  It  is  based  on  the  demon- 
strated existence  of  an  incorporeal  mental 
and  vital  organism  in  each  living  creature. 
With  what  success  this  hypothesis  meets 
and  explains  the  various  facts  involved  in 
these  questions,  the  reader  shall  judge.  At 
all  events,  such  an  incorporeal  microcosm 
of  ideal  forms  of  being  as  I have  supposed 


Chap.  VIII. 


439 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


to  exist  within  every  life-germ  is  fully  war- 
ranted by  Mr.  Darwin’s  physical  micro- 
cosm, based  entirely  on  the  assumed  pres- 
ence of  corporeal  “self-propagating  organ- 
isms” concentrated  in  “each  living  crea- 
ture,” “numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven.” 
Such  a microcosm  as  he  supposes,  with 
countless  physical  organisms  existing  in  a 
single  flea  or  midge,  would  be  surely  quite 
improbable,  from  their  infinite  tendency  to 
crowding  and  want  of  space,  whilst  my  hy- 
pothesis supposes  a microcosm  of  unnum- 
bered incorporeal  organisms  and  vital 
forms,  which  involve  no  more  idea  of 
crowding  or  want  of  room  than  the  mem- 
ory of  a thousand  separate  events  would 


physically  jostle  each  other  in  the  brain. 
That  the  microcosm  which  I have  thus 
supposed  is  at  least  as  plausible  as  that 
assumed  by  Mr.  Darwin,  there  surely  can 
be  no  doubt.  Whether  such  an  hypothesis 
will  satisfy  the  reader  or  not,  one  thing  re- 
mains fixed  and  settled  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, namely,  that  these  reversionary  and 
embryological  facts  and  phenomena  have 
no  relation  whatever  to  the  physical  de- 
scent of  human  beings  from  marsupials, 
reptiles,  and  fishes  ; and  their  employment 
hereafter  in  support  of  evolution  should 
be  regarded  as  an  unwarrantable  attempt 
to  impose  upon  the  credulity  of  the 
world. 


440 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Chapter  IX. 


EVOLUTION.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS 
EXAMINED. — (Continued.) 


Rudimentary  Organs. — The  most  Startling  Instances  of  such  Structures  adduced  by  Darwin  and 
Haeckel,  such  as  Upper  Front  Teeth  in  the  Embryonic  Calf  and  Whale,  and  Aborted  Leg-Bones  in 
the  Whale  and  Boa-Constrictor. — These  Rudiments  claimed  by  all  Evolutionists  as  Positive  Proof  that 
such  beings  descended  from  Ancestors  having  these  Organs  in  a Perfect  State. — The  Author  proposes 
in  the  Conclusion  of  this  Chapter  to  give  a Scientific  Explanation  of  these  Rudiments,  which  has  never 
before  been  attempted. — A Definition  of  Science  by  Huxley  and  Spencer. — The  Miraculous  Creation 
of  a Species  demonstrated  to  be  Scientific  if  shown  to  be  mor.e  Probable  than  Transmutation. — Such  a 
Demonstration  Absolutely  Furnished  by  the  Testimony  of  Darwin  and  all  his  followers. — The  Law  of 
Evolution  explained  and  the  word  defined  by  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Spencer. — Rudimentary  Organs,  as 
the  Result  of  Physical  Transmutation  from  Ancestors  having  the  Organs  perfect,  an  Utter  Impossibility 
from  the  Terminology  employed. — The  Infinite  Absurdity  of  the  Assumption  pointed  out. — The  Theory 
of  Evolution  turned  fatally  against  itself,  and  the  Bovine  Genus  demonstrated  to  have  been  Miraculously 
Created  by  the  Necessary  Positions  of  Evolutionists. — The  Probability  shown  from  Evolution  itself  that 
beneath  the  Lowest  Silurian  Deposits  there  exist  Fossil  Remains  of  Fishes,  Reptiles,  Birds,  Mammals, 
and  even  Men. — Rudimentary  Organs  shown  to  be  the  most  Conclusive  Evidence  of  the  Fallacy  of 
Darwin’s  Whole  Theory. — A Suggestion  to  Darwin  and  Haeckel  how  to  easily  dispense  with  their 
Annoying  Difficulty  of  Creation  and  Spontaneous  Generation,  according  to  the  logic  of  Evolution. — Each 
one  of  the  cases  referred  to  by  Darwin  and  Haeckel  taken  away  from  Evolution  by  piecemeal. — The 
Utter  Impossibility  of  a Cow  losing  her  Teeth  or  of  a Whale  or  Boa-Constrictor  losing  its  Legs  demon- 
strated.— The  want  of  Shrewdness  and  Business  Tact  in  Evolutionists  shown. — They  literally  throw 
away  their  Strongest  Arguments  by  a Childish  Mistake. — Eyeless  Cave-Rats  and  Fishes  clearly  ac- 
counted for. — They  are  no  help  to  Evolution. — The  Scientific  Hypothesis  finally  explained  by  which  to 
account  for  Rudimentary  Organs. — Darwin’s  Confessed  and  Demonstrated  Ignorance  of  the  Cause  of 
Variations  proved  from  Numerous  Passages. — The  Reason  only  Attributable  to  his  Monistic  and  Purely 
Physical  Views  of  Organic  Beings. — The  Cause  of  all  Variations  Simply  and  Rationally  Explained. — 
Numerous  Circumstances  adduced  preparatory  to  my  Hypothesis. — The  Facts  on  which  it  is  based  de- 
monstrated by  the  Highest  Authorities  on  Scientific  Breeding. — Several  Astounding  Facts  cited. — 
Jacob’s  Experiments  with  Laban’s  Cattle  Corroborated. — It  has  taken  Scientists  thousands  of  years  to 
catch  up  with  the  Bible. — The  Hypothesis  Conclusively  Applied  to  the  cases  in  hand. — The  True 
Reason  Why  the  Brute  can  not  be  Immortal. — Summary  of  the  Argument. 


Rudimentary  Organs. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  I have  en- 
deavored to  dispose  of  two  among  the 
strongest  arguments  relied  on  in  support 
of  evolution,  namely,  the  problems  of  re- 
versionary action  and  those  relating  to 
embryology.  I propose  in  the  present 
chapter  to  consider  the  questions,  even 
more  important  if  anything,  growing  out 
of  rudimentary  organs,  as  they  are  called, 


which  Darwin,  Haeckel,  and  all  advocates 
of  evolution,  regard  as  completely  inex- 
plicable save  as  the  remaining  indications 
of  the  normal  organic  structure  of  remote 
ancestors.  In  fact,  these  writers  tell  us, 
as  in  the  arguments  based  on  reversions 
and  embryology,  that  no  attempt  at  a 
scientific  explanation  of  rudimentary  or- 
gans has  ever  been  made  by  an  opponent 
of  the  theory  of  descent,  and  that  any  such 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


441 


attempt,  should  it  ever  be  made,  would  be 
folly  in  the  extreme,  unless  such  explana- 
tion should  in  some  form  recognize  the 
only  key  to  the  mystery — the  law  of  descent 
by  transmutation.  It  is  true  that  a few 
writers  have  assumed  such  rudimentary 
structures  as  purposely  designed  by  the 
Creator  to  complete  the  scheme  of  Nature 
for  the  sake  of  symmetry;  but,  as  Mr. 
Darwin  remarks,  “this  is  not  an  explana- 
tion, merely  a re-statement  of  the  fact.” 
At  all  events,  it  does  not  pretend  to  be  a 
scientific  explanation. 

I now  undertake,  not  to  merely  re-state 
the  fact,  but  to  furnish  the  most  unequivo- 
cal proof  in  the  first  place  that  the  theory 
of  descent  does  not  and  can  not,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  afford  a shadow  of  expla- 
nation of  the  existence  of  rudimentary 
structures  as  the  remnants  of  ancestral 
organs.  I propose  further  to  show  that 
the  system  of  evolution  under  natural  se- 
lection necessarily  and  absolutely  prohibits 
such  an  explanation  as  these  writers  give, 
and  will  adduce  the  clearest  demonstration 
from  the  highest  authorities — Darwin, 
Haeckel,  Huxley,  and  Spencer, — that  any 
attempt  to  trace  rudimentary  organs  back 
to  their  normal  existence  in  remote  ances- 
tral forms  must  be  utterly  fallacious  and 
absurd,  actually  and  literally  overthrowing 
the  whole  superstructure  of  Darwinism; 
after  which  I will  furnish  a clear  and  com- 
prehensive solution  of  the  entire  problem 
(not  a provisional  hypothesis,  as  in  the 
preceding  chapter,)  based  on  purely  scien- 
tific principles,  confirmed  by  the  evidence 
of  numerous  recorded  facts;  so  that  Prof. 
Haeckel,  notwithstanding  his  boastful 
challenge  to  any  writer  to  offer  a “shadow 
of  explanation  ” of  rudimentary  organs, 
will  see  to  his  amazement  that  there  is  at 
least  one  writer  sufficiently  foolhardy  to 
step  single-handed  into  the  arena  and  ac- 
cept his  defy. 


Prior,  however,  to  entering  on  this  in- 
vestigation, let  us  see  what  Mr.  Darwin 
and  Professor  Haeckel  have  to  say  about 
rudimentary  organs  and  their  unanswer- 
able bearing  on  evolution.  The  following 
citations  will  present  the  case  in  its  strong- 
est light: — 

“The  boa-constrictor  has  rudiments  of  hind-limbs 
and  of  a pelvis,  and  if  it  be  said  that  these  bones 
have  been  retained  ‘ to  complete  the  scheme  of 
Nature,’  why,  as  Prof.  Weismann  asks,  have  they 
not  been  retained  by  other  snakes,  which  do  not 
possess  even  a vestige  of  these  bones?” 

“What  can  be  more  curious  than  the  presence 
of  teeth  in  foetal  whales,  which,  when  grown  up, 
have  not  a tooth  in  their  heads;  or  the  teeth  which 
never  cut  through  the  gums  in  the  upper  jaws  of 
unborn  calves ?” — “It  is  an  important  fact  that 
rudimentary  organs,  such  as  teeth  in  the  upper  jaws 
of  whales,  and  ruminants  can  often  be  detected  in 
the  embryo,  but  afterwards  wholly  disappear." — 
“The  calf,  for  instance,  has  inh&rited  teeth,  which 
never  cut  through  the  gums  of  the  upper  jaw ,from 
an  early  progenitor  having  well-developed  teeth." — 
Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  397,  399,  400,  420. 

“But  some  serpents,  viz.,  the  giant  serpents  (Boa 
Python),  have  still  in  the  hinder  portion  of  the  body 
some  useless  little  bones,  which  are  the  remains  of 
lost  hind-legs.  In  like  manner  the  mammals  of  the 
whale  tribe  (Cetacea),  which  have  only  fore-legs 
fully  developed  (breast-fins),  have  further  back  in 
their  body  another  pair  of  utterly  superfluous  bones, 
which  are  remnants  of  undeveloped  hind-legs.  The 
same  thing  occurs  in  many  genuine  fishes,  in  which 
the  hind-legs  have  in  like  7>ianner  been  lost." 

“ In  the  embryos  of  many  ruminating  animals — 
among  others,  in  our  common  cattle — fore-teeth,  or 
incisors,  are  placed  in  the  mid-bone  of  the  upper 
jaw,  which  never  fully  develop,  and  therefore  serve 
no  purpose.  The  embryos  of  many  whales,  which 
afterwards  possess  the  well-known  whalebone  in- 
stead of  teeth,  yet  have,  before  they  are  born  and 
while  they  take  no  nourishment,  teeth  in  their  jaws, 
which  set  of  teeth  never  comes  into  use.  . . . No  bio- 
logical phenomenon  has  perhaps  ever  placed  zool- 
ogists or  botanists  in  greater  embarrassment  than 
these  rudimentary  or  abortive  organs.  . . . Now  it  is 
precisely  this  widely  spread  and  mysterious  phe- 
nomenon of  rudimentary  organs,  in  regard  to  which 
all  other  attempts  at  explanation  fail,  which  is  per- 
fectly explained,  and  indeed  in  the  simplest  and 
clearest  way,  by  Darwin' s Theory  of  Inheritance 
and  Adaptation.  ...  I have  here  spoken  somewhat 


442 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


fully  of  the  phenomena  of  rudimentary  organs,  be- 
cause they  are  of  the  utmost  general  importance, 
and  because  they  lead  us  to  the  great  general  and 
fundamental  questions  in  philosophy  and  natural 
science,  for  the  solution  of  which  the  Theory  of 
Descent  has  now  become  the  indispensable  guide." — 
Haeckel,  History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  pp.  12-17. 

It  seems  to  me  extremely  strange,  in 
reading  these  passages,  that  the  scientific 
facts  here  presented,  which  no  one  dis- 
putes, have  not  been  wrenched  from  the 
theory  of  descent  and  turned  against  evo- 
lutionists with  fatal  effect  in  some  one  of 
the  numerous  publications  which  have 
appeared  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Darwin’s 
hypothesis  of  transmutation  during  the 
eighteen  years  since  the  first  publication 
of  The  Origin  of  Species.  If  they  can 
neither  be  explained  by  natural  laws  nor 
shown  in  any  way  to  conflict  with  the  system 
of  evolution  under  natural  selection,  I can 
not  see  how  writers  can  consistently  go  on 
and  oppose  the  theory  of  Mr.  Darwin  with 
such  palpable  and  startling  facts  staring 
them  in  the  face.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  this  most  invulnerable  bulwark  of  evolu- 
tion shall  really  turn  out  when  assaulted 
to  be  nothing  better  than  a paper  fort,  there 
will  be  little  left  of  Darwinism  capable  of 
inspiring  the  confidence  even  of  the  most 
ultra  evolutionist,  or  of  exciting  the  fears 
of  its  most  timid  opponents. 

I am  aware  that  the  intimations  here 
made  of  a purpose  not  only  to  turn  all  these 
facts  fatally  against  the  theory  of  Mr.  Dar- 
win, but  to  explain  them  scientifically  in 
opposition  to  evolution,  while  no  writer  has 
ever  attempted  either  an  explanation  or  a 
rebuttal  of  them  by  scientific  laws,  appear^, 
to  be  presumptuous  in  the  highest  degree, 
v/hile  to  thus  assault  the  entire  army  of 
evolution  in  its  strongest  fortified  position, 
with  its  heaviest  guns  pointing  directly  at 
me,  must  appear  to  many  almost  like  court- 
ing annihilation.  But  having  just  run  the 
risk  of  facing  other  evolutionary  guns  of 


almost  equal  caliber,  and  having  found 
them  when  tested  charged  with  blank  car- 
tridges, I shall  undertake  this  task  with  little 
trepidation  or  alarm  as  to  the  result.  If  I 
have  in  any  degree  verified  my  pledges  in 
regard  to  the  two  preceding  “unanswer- 
able” classes  of  facts — reversions  and  em- 
bryology— I have  a right  to  expect  the  un- 
biassed attention  of  the  reader  while  I enter 
upon  this  the  most  profound  and  formid- 
able of  all  evolutionary  arguments. 

As  the  subject  of  rudimentary  organs 
will  have  to  be  approached  by  a kind  of 
sapping  and  mining  process  in  order  to 
expose  the  untenableness  of  the  position, 
and  ultimately  to  bring  about,  as  I trust, 
an  unconditional  surrender  of  the  works, 
it  will  require  a little  preparatory  engi- 
neering and  reconnoitering,  and  possibly 
the  establishment  of  a few  points  of  obser- 
vation, not  directly  related,  apparently,  to 
the  matter  in  hand, — yet  the  bearing  of 
which  will  become  self-evident  as  the  work 
advances. 

As  a matter  of  course,  all  opposition  to 
Darwin’s  theory  of  man’s  descent  from  the 
lowest  forms  of  life  by  means  of  transmu- 
tation under  natural  selection  must  assume 
the  miraculous  formation  of  the  parents 
of  each  species  by  the  direct  intervention 
of  an  infinite  Creator.  It  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, however,  and  never  has  been,  that 
we  should  prove  or  demonstrate  the  miracu- 
lous creation  of  a species,  as  evolutionists 
are  expected,  and  as  they  claim,  to  demon- 
strate its  origin  by  natural  selection.  All 
that  opponents  of  evolution  have  to  do  is 
to  rest  upon  the  received  doctrine  of  crea- 
tion, which  has  borne  sway  among  the 
masses  of  mankind  for  thousands  of  years; 
and  if  any  scientific  theory,  such  as  that  of 
evolution,  shall  come  up  in  opposition  and 
assume  another  origin  for  specific  forms 
than  the  received  mode,  it  belongs  to  the 
advocates  of  such  theory  to  assume  also 


Chai'.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


443 


the  onus probandi,  and  give  reasonable  proof 
of  such  hypothesis,  while  the  adherents  to 
the  old  doctrine  have  only  to  look  on  as 
spectators  and  occasionally  show  the  de- 
fects of  the  new  assumption,  and  point  out 
wherein  such  supposed  origin  is  less  reason- 
able or  probable,  all  things  considered,  than 
the  old  mode.  Though  this  is  really  all 
there  is  required  of  us,  yet  it  would  be  a 
somewhat  remarkable  and  unexpected 
state  of  facts  if  I should  actually  demon- 
strate the  miraculous  formation  of  one  of 
our  highly  organized  species  of  quadru- 
peds, using  the  very  positions  assumed  by 
evolutionists  to  confirm  such  demonstra- 
tion! This,  startling  as  it  may  seem,  will 
soon  be  so  clearly  established  that  no  evo- 
lutionist can  assail  it,  unless  he  abandons 
his  own  theory  to  do  it.  For  the  present, 
I shall  assume  the  miraculous  creation  of 
all  specific  forms  as  the  rational,  probable, 
and  only  consistent  hypothesis  of  the  origin 
of  species. 

Necessarily,  evolutionists  deny  this  as 
unscientific , and  therefore  irrational.  But 
they  can  not  deny  the  formation  of  the  first 
living  species,  from  which  all  others  have 
evolved,  as  a scientific  fact , either  as  the 
result  of  a miraculous  intervention  on  the 
part  of  God,  acting  with  a definite  design 
and  purpose,  or  else  as  a spontaneous  act 
of  blind,  mindless,  senseless,  lifeless  laws 
of  Nature,  acting  necessarily  without  de- 
sign, purpose,  or  intelligence.  There  are 
unavoidably  but  these  two  ways  for  such 
beginning.  From  the  exhaustive  discus- 
sion of  Spontaneous  Generation  in  a recent 
chapter,  I believe  the  reader  will  justify 
the  assumption  that  no  such  a thing  as 
spontaneous  generation,  or  the  formation 
of  a living,  thinking  being,  without  prior 
life,  thought,  and  purpose,  is  a possibility  in 
Nature.  Hence,  the  first  living  species, 
however  lowly  and  simple,  must  have  been 
created  by  the  miraculous  intervention  of 


a supernatural  power,  as  admitted  by  Mr. 
Darwin.  I shall  therefore  take  his  view 
for  granted,  as  the  only  possible  way  of 
producing  the  first  species  of  living  crea- 
tures. 

Now,  as  everything  connected  with  the 
theory  of  evolution,  from  its  start  to  its 
consummation,  as  claimed  by  all  evolution 
writers,  must  be  regarded  as  a scientific 
process  under  Nature,  it  is  thus  clearly 
demonstrated  at  the  very  start  of  the  argu- 
ment that  the  miraculous  creation  of  at 
least  one  species  must  be  admitted  as  a fact 
of  science.  (This,  however,  is  not  the  mirac- 
ulous creation  I propose  soon  to  demon- 
strate.) Then,  if  one  miraculous  interpo- 
sition on  the  part  of  God  may  be  regarded 
as  a settled  scientific  fact,  on  the  ground 
of  its  necessary  occurrence  in  order  to  start 
evolution,  may  not  two  separate  miracles 
on  the  part  of  the  same  All-wise  Creator 
be  likewise  facts  of  science,  if  a rational 
probability  exists  for  their  necessity?  And 
if  two, may  not  all  species  have  been  mirac- 
ulously inaugurated,  and  still  each  separate 
creation  be  a fact  of  science? 

The  great  and  reiterated  cry  of  evolution 
writers  seems  to  be,  “Science!  Science! 
Science!”  Give  us  science,  they  say,  in- 
stead of  miracles  or  special  acts  of  power; 
yet  they  are  logically  and  unavoidably 
compelled  to  admit  the  miraculous  crea- 
tion of  at  least  one  species  to  be  scientific, 
in  order  to  have  anything  to  begin  evolu- 
tion with ! Is  it  any  less  tax  on  infinite 
power  and  wisdom  to  create  one  species 
by  a direct  miracle  than  two? — than  five? 
— than  a thousand? — than  a hundred  thou- 
sand different  species?  Would  it  be  any 
more  of  a strain  on  Omnipotent  Power  and 
Omniscient  Wisdom  to  design  and  con- 
struct an  elephant  than  to  form  an  oyster? 

What  is  “science,”  of  which  these  writers 
so  persistently  remind  us  when  treating  on 
evolution?  It  is  nothing  in  the  world  but 


444 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


knowledge, — that  degree  of  knowledge  re- 
lating to  any  question  which  forms  the 
most  reasonable  basis  for  reflection  and 
faith.  If  the  existence  of  a God  be  more 
reasonable  from  all  the  sources  of  our  in- 
formation than  Atheism,  then  the  former 
becomes  a scientific  thesis.  Herbert  Spen- 
cer asks: — 

“What  is  science?  To  see  the  absurdity  of  the 
prejudice  against  it,  we  need  only  remark  that 
science  is  simply  a higher  development  of  common 
knowledge;  and  that  if  science  is  repudiated,  all 
knowledge  must  be  repudiated  along  with  it." — First 
Principles , p.  1 8. 

Huxley  inculcates  the  same  true  idea  of 
science : — 

“ Knowledge  upon  many  subjects  grows  to  be 
more  and  more  perfect ; and  when  it  becomes  to 
be  so  accurate  ami  sure  that  it  is  capable  of  being 
proved  to  persons  of  suitable  intelligence,  it  is  called 
science.  The  science  of  any  subject  is  the  highest 
and  most  exact  knowledge  upon  that  subject. ' — 
Elementary  Pysiology,  p.  II. 

With  these  lucid  definitions  of  “science," 
does  it  not  conclusively  follow,  that,  since 
one  miracle  is  demonstrated  to  be  scien- 
tific, a thousand  miracles  would  be  equally 
scientific  if  the  weight  of  evidence  or  the 
most  “accurate”  knowledge  we  could  ac- 
quire went  in  their  favor  rather  than 
against  them?  No  evolutionist  will  here- 
after assert  that  a miracle  or  the  miracu- 
lous formation  of  species  is  not  recognized 
as  among  scientific  facts.  The  miraculous 
creation  of  one  species  being  forced  upon 
them  as  scientific,  if  it  shall  be  shown  that 
it  is  more  probable  and  reasonable  to  as- 
sume that  all  species  were  started  in  the 
same  monistic  manner  rather  than  to  sup- 
pose an  entire  change  of  God’s  plan  of 
operation  after  having  begun  by  miracle, 
then  undeniably  the  miraculous  formation 
of  every  separate  species  becomes  the  true 
science  on  the  subject  of  the  origin  of 
species.  It  must  therefore  strike  every 
candid  and  thoughtful  reader  as  simply 


absurd  in  the  highest  degree  for  a scientist 
like  Mr.  Darwin  to  speak  slightingly  against 
the  miraculous  creation  of  different  species 
as  unreasonable  and  unscientific,  when  he 
is  obliged  to  admit  that  the  leading  and 
fundamental  fact  of  science  on  which  his 
whole  transmutation  theory  is  founded  is 
the  miraculous  creation  of  the  first  few 
simple  beings  as  the  start  for  evolution! 
Let  it  therefore  rest  right  here  as  a settled 
principle  of  philosophy  and  science  that 
miracles,  like  all  other  facts  in  question, 
depend  alone  on  the  weight  of  evidence; 
and  that  if  a miracle  be  shown  to  be  a 
probable  necessity  for  explaining  the  phe- 
nomena of  Nature,  it  is  as  much  a fact  of 
science  as  the  growth  of  an  oak  from  an 
acorn  or  the  birth  of  an  animal  after  the 
parents  exist,  and  that  the  whole  question 
as  to  miraculous  or  non-miraculous  crea- 
tions of  the  separate  species,  like  ordinary 
propositions,  hinges  entirely  on  the  amount 
of  testimony  brought  to  bear,  thus  deter- 
mining the  probabilities  in  the  case. 

Thus,  having  clearly  shown  that  the 
miraculous  production  of  a species  is  as 
strictly  a scientific  fact  as  the  falling  of  an 
apple  or  as  any  other  ordinary  event  oc- 
curring under  the  laws  of  Nature,  provided 
it  is  proved  that  such  miraculous  com- 
mencement of  specific  forms  best  explains 
the  various  phenomena  involved,  and  is 
more  consistent  with  collateral  facts  of 
science  than  any  other  assumption,  I will 
now  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject  for 
the  present,  to  be  resumed  after  a while, 
and  at  once  try  to  find  out  the  true  signi- 
fication of  evolution  as  applied  to  the  origin 
and  development  of  species. 

When  I state  that  evolution,  according 
to  all  authorities  on  the  subject,  distinctly 
implies  development  from  the  crude  to  tin 
refined,  from  the  imperfect  to  the  perfect, 
from  the  lowly  organic  beings  to  the  higher 
grades  of  organisms,  from  the  indefinite  to 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


445 


the  definite  form,  from  the  simple  structure 
to  the  complex  arrangement  of  parts,  and 
from  the  homogeneous  to  the  heteroge- 
neous, I but  state  what  the  best  writers  and 
those  best  qualified  to  comprehend  the  true 
meaning  of  such  terminology  will  at  once 
admit.  Hence,  no  evolution  under  natural 
selection,  such  as  I am  now  investigating, 
can  go  backward  or  downward.  Retrogres- 
sion or  deterioration  under  evolution  is 
an  evident  absurdity  on  its  very  face,  and 
hence  a contradiction  in  terms.  Mr.  Dar- 
win says: — 

“As  natural  selection  works  solely  for  and  by 
the  good  of  each  being  all  corporeal  and  mental  en- 
dowments will  tend  to  progress  toward  perfection." 
— Origin  of  Species,  p.  428. 

Professor  Huxley  entertains  the  same 
idea  of  evolution — that  it  is  in  all  cases  to 
improve  the  being  operated  on  or  to  make 
it  better,  while  any  spontaneous  variation 
which  may  happen  in  Nature  tending  to 
deteriorate  the  species  or  the  individual 
or  to  make  it  worse,  will  lead  to  the  exter- 
mination of  such  species  or  such  being  by 
the  very  operation  of  the  law  itself.  He 
sa  s: — 

“It  seems  impossible  that  any  variation  which 
may  arise  in  a species  in  Nature  should  not  tend 
in  some  way  or  other  to  be  a little  better  or  worse 
than  the  previous  stock;  if  it  is  a little  better  it  will 
have  an  advantage  over  and  tend  to  extirpate  the 
latter  in  this  crush  and  struggle;  and  if  it  is  a little 
worse  it  will  itself  be  extirpated." — Lectures  on  the 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  123. 

Mr.  Darwin  corroborates  this  completely 
in  more  than  a dozen  different  places  in 
his  Origin  of  Species  and  other  works.  I 
will  quote  but  a single  passage: — 

“The  continued  production  of  new  forms  through 
natural  selection,  which  implies  that  each  new  va- 
riety has  some  advantage  over  others,  almost  inev- 
itably leads  to  the  extermination  of  the  older  or  less 
improved  forms." — Animals  and  Plants, x ol.i.,p.  i8i 

But  to  settle  all  doubt  as  to  the  tendency 
and  operation  of  evolution,  according  to 
its  intrinsic  signification  being  develop- 


ment upward  not  downward,  from  the  uni- 
organism to  the  multiplication  of  parts, 
from  the  indefinite  to  the  definite  struc- 
ture, from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  and 
from  the  homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous , 
1 quote  from  the  great  modern  philosopher 
and  definer  of  general  laws  — Herbert 
Spencer,  one  of  the  very  highest  authori- 
ties among  evolutionists: — 

“From  the  remotest  part  which  science  can 
fathom  up  to  the  novelties  of  yesterday,  an  essential 
trait  of  evolution  has  been  the  transformation  of  the 
homogeneous  into  the  heterogeneous.  ...  At  the  same 
time  that  evolution  is  a change  from  the  homogeneous 
to  the  heterogeneous  it  is  a change  from  the  indefinite 
to  the  definite.  Along  with  an  advancement  from 
simplicity  to  complexity  there  is  an  advance  from 
confusion  to  order.  . . . Development,  no  matter  oj 
what  kind,  exhibits  not  only  a multiplication  of  un- 
like parts,  but  an  increase  in  the  distinctness  with 
which  these  parts  are  marked  off  from  one  another.” 
— Herbert  Spencer, First  Principles,  pp. 359, 362. 

From  this  necessary  and  unavoidable 
meaning  of  evolution  it  will  now  be  seen 
at  once  that  the  idea  of  rudimentary  or- 
gans having  been  aborted  or  atrophied  by 
descent  from  ancestral  species  which  had 
those  organs  in  a perfect  condition  is  an 
impossibility  as  well  as  a gross  absurdity, 
since  it  would  be  exactly  the  reverse  of 
evolution,  and  an  absolute  change  from 
the  heterogeneous  back  into  the  homoge- 
neous. Take,  for  example,  the  boa-con- 
strictor, which, Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  informs 
us, once  had  legs  in  a perfect  condition, and 
that  by  evolution  (!)  under  natural  selec- 
tion and  development  (!)  by  survival  of  the 
fittest  (!)  the  species  finally  lost  its  legs, 
leaving  the  atrophied  leg-bones  in  the  body 
beneath  the  skin;  and  that  ever  since  it 
has  been  obliged  to  convey  its  ponderous 
form  along  the  ground  by  the  most  unmc- 
chanical  and  unphilosophical  class  of 
movements  known  in  the  animal  kingdom. 

It  thus  flatly  contradicts  reason  as  well 
as  the  true  meaning  of  evolution,  as  it  is  a 
retrogression  or  a going  backward  instead 


446 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


of  an  evolution  or  a “ progress  toward  per- 
fection,”  as  just  quoted  from  Mr.  Darwin 
himself.  It  is  a clear  transformation  from 
the  complex  back  to  the  simple, — from  the 
heterogeneous  back  to  the  homogeneous, — 
from  a “multiplication”  of  parts  to  the 
absence  of  parts, — exactly  the  reverse  of 
the  law  and  definition  of  evolution  and  all 
development,  as  laid  down  by  Herbert 
Spencer.  Besides,  it  is  practically  an  al- 
most laughable  absurdity,  since,  according 
to  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  theory  of  evolution, 
this  boa-constrictor  was  first  developed  by 
natural  selection  through  almost  countless 
slight  successive  modifications  from  some 
legless  fish  or  mollusk  till  it  possessed  the  1 
quadrupedal  advantages  of  legs  and  feet; 
and  then,  by  as  many  spontaneous  varia- 
tions also  carefully  accumulated  and  pre- 
served by  this  “scrutinizing”  process  called 
natural  selection,  its  feet  and  legs  have 
been  finally  aborted  and  taken  from  it,  for 
no  apparent  purpose  under  the  heavens 
except  to  leave  “little  bones”  under  the 
skin  to  aid  evolutionists  in  proving  descent 
by  transmutation! 

No  one  can  believe  for  a moment  that 
these  legs  were  not  useful  or  of  advantage 
to  this  creature  for  locomotion, — as  much 
so  as  are  the  legs  of  the  alligator,  if  not 
even  more  so,  since  alligators  live  in  the 
water  and  scarcely  need  them.  If  legs  had 
not  been  of  great  service  to  the  boa  why 
should  natural  selection  have  wrought 
through  almost  numberless  generations  to 
develop  them  from  some  legless  species 
below  it?  Even  if  they  had  not  been  of 
any  essential  importance,  we  have  volumes 
of  evidence  all  through  Nature  showing 
that  the  most  useless  and  absolutely  worth- 
less structures  are  among  the  best  pre- 
served under  this  “scrutinizing”  law  of 
natural  selection.  Look  at  the  tails  of 
tortoises,  foxes,  dogs,  wolves,  panthers, 
lions,  tigers,  &c.,  some  of  them  actually  | 


injurious,  such  as  the  bushy  tails  of  foxes 
when  running  from  danger  or  pursuing 
prey  in  a snow  or  rain  storm.  Yet  these 
absolutely  useless  and  superflous  tails  con- 
tinue unaborted  and  in  all  their  perfection 
under  this  discriminating  law  of  natural 
selection,  which  Mr.  Darwin  declares  will 
destroy  an  organ  if  it  should  become  su- 
perfluous:— • 

“Thus,  as  I believe,  natural  selection  will  tend 
in  the  long  run  to  reduce  any  part  of  the  organiza- 
tion as  soon  as  it  becomes,  through  changed  habits, 
superfluous.'' — Origin  of  Species,  p.  118. 

The  hump  of  the  camel  is  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  instances  of  superfluity 
and  uselessness  in  organs  known  in  the 
animal  kingdom.  It  is  not,  as  some  have 
supposed,  a part  of  the  osseous  structure, 
and  therefore  useful  on  the  mechanical 
principle  of  the  arch  in  giving  strength  to 
the  camel,  thus  enabling  it  to  carry  heavy 
burdens.  Besides,  what  did  natural  selec- 
tion know  about  the  camel  being  a pack- 
animal  when  its  humps  were  developed  a 
million  years  before  man  existed  on  earth, 
according  to  evolution?  Thus  we  have  a 
living  proof  that  Mr.  Darwin’s  great  “scru- 
tinizing” law  of  natural  selection  not  only 
developed  the  utterly  useless  and  “super- 
fluous” humps  on  the  camel,  which  no 
naturalist  pretends  ever  had  or  could  have 
had  any  use,  but  it  refuses  to  “reduce” 
them!  Yet  this  same  natural  selection, 
after  working  a million  years  to  develop 
legs  on  the  boa-constrictor,  which  are  uni- 
versally known  to  be  of  service  to  an  ani- 
mal, takes  the  particular  pains  to  “ reduce  ” 
them,  and  leave  the  evidence  of  such  re- 
duction in  the  shape  of  a few  “little  bones” 
in  the  hinder  part  of  its  body! 

More,  still,  the  hump  of  the  camel  is  not 
only  useless  but  it  is  worse  than  useless, — 
it  is  absolutely  injurious,  being  a burden  to 
carry  around,  and  necessarily  consuming 
nutrition  to  aid  in  its  growth  and  to  replace 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution.— Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


447 


its  lost  substance,  which  is  continually  pass- 
ing off  by  the  physiological  laws  of  wear 
and  deterioration.  Mr.  Darwin  teaches,  as 
one  of  the  fundamental  tendencies  and 
offices  of  natural  selection,  the  destruc- 
tion” or  atrophy  of  every  organ  which  is 
in  any  degree  “injurious.”  He  says: 

“On  the  other  hand  we  may  feel  sure  that  any 
variation  in  the  least  degree  injurious  would  be 
rigidly  destroyed.  [Why  has  it  not  “rigidly  de- 
stroyed the  camel’s  hump?]  This  preservation  of 
favorable  individual  differences  and  variations  and 
the  destruction  of  those  which  are  injurious  I have 
called  natural  selection  or  survival  of  the  fittest.” — 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  63. 

Hence,  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion 
that  no  more  absurd  principle  or  law  than 
natural  selection  was  ever  promulgated  to 
the  world,  since  it  carefully  preserves  the 
useless  tails  of  mammals  while  its  particu- 
lar business  is  to  “reduce”  them,  and 
scrutinizingly  builds  up  and  protects  the 
injurious  humps  of  camels  which  its  office 
is  to  destroy,  while  at  the  same  time  it  takes 
away  the  most  necessary  and  even  essen- 
tial legs  of  a quadruped,  according  to  Mr. 
Darwin,  after  working  a million  years  to 
produce  them ! Was  there  ever  a more 
contradictory,  incongruous,  or  ridiculous 
theory,  propounded  by  a sane  naturalist? 
While  the  hump  of  the  camel  is  conspicu- 
ously useless  and  hence  injurious,  it  could 
not,  Mr.  Darwin  tells  us  in  more  than 
twenty  places,  have  been  produced  by 
natural  selection,  which  only  acts  on  useful 
variations.  I will  quote  here  but  two  pas- 
sages. He  says: — 

“ Natural  selection  acts  exclusively  by  the  pres- 
ervation and  accumulation  of  variations  which  are 
beneficial 

“ Natural  selection  acts  only  by  the  preservation 
and  accumulation  of  small  inherited  modifications, 
each  profitable  to  the  preserved  being." — Origin  of 
Species,  pp.  75,  97. 

Now,  how  simple  a process  it  proves  to 
be  to  “break  down”  this  theory  of  natural 
selection  at  every  turn  of  the  investigation, 


even. with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Darwin, 
so  built  up  is  it  of  inconsistent  and  con- 
tradictory elements.  Its  author  admits 
that  his  theory  would  “absolutely  break 
down”  if  a single  organ  could  be  found 
which  could  not  have  been  produced  by 
the  accumulation  of  slight  modifications 
through  natural  selection.  He  says  : — 

“If  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  any  complex 
organ  existed  which  could  not  possibly  have  been 
formed  by  numerous  successive  slight  modifications 
[natural  selection]  my  theory  would  absolutely  break 
down." — Origin  of  Species, p.  146. 

How  simple,  therefore,  it  is  to  “break 
down”  and  utterly  overthrow  Darwinism, 
when  I can  easily  point  out  a thousand 
organs  of  different  species,  such  as  the 
useless  and  injurious  humps  of  camels, 
which  could  not  possibly  have  been  thus 
produced  by  natural  selection , since  it  acts 
“only”  and  “exclusively”  on  “profitable” 
or  “beneficial”  variations!  An  ordinary 
scientific  student  might  safely  take  a con- 
tract to  hopelessly  “break  down”  the  theory 
of  evolution  fifty  times  a day  for  a full 
week,  using  nothing  in  the  operation  but 
Mr.  Darwin’s  Origin  of  Species,  Descent  of 
Man,  and  Variations  of  Animals  and  Plants ; 
and  if  he  should  be  permitted  to  add  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel’s  History  of  Creation  and 
General  Morphology,  he  would  be  safe  in 
extending  the  contract  for  a month.  But 
as  I shall  refer  to  numerous  additional 
instances  of  this  kind  in  other  places,  in 
which,  according  to  his  own  admission, 
his  theory  of  natural  selection  must  “ab- 
solutely break  down,”  I leave  the  present 
unanswerable  demonstration  for  the  read- 
er’s reflection. 

Now,  as  the  boa-constrictor,  with  its 
aborted  leg-bones  beneath  the  skin,  resem- 
bles all  other  serpents  except  in  size,  is  it 
not  rational  and  logical  to  suppose  if  it  was 
developed  from  a quadruped  that  all  the 
other  families  of  snakes  came  in  the  same 


448 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


manner?  If  so,  why  is  it  that  in  the  hun- 
dreds of  species  of  snakes,  large  and  small, 
not  one  can  be  found  except  this  boa-con- 
strictor having  these  rudimentary  leg-bones 
I hidden  beneath  the  skin?  Mr.  Darwin  dis- 
tinctly admits,  as  quoted  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  chapter,  that  these  rudimentary 
leg-bones  are  confined  exclusively  to  the 
boa  family,  and  makes  this  thrust  to  ridi- 
cule the  idea  that  this  snake  should  have 
been  thus  created  for  symmetry  and  to 
maintain  the  harmony  of  Nature,  when  no 
other  serpent,  large  or  small,  has  been  pro- 
vided with  this  mark  of  symmetry?  How- 
ever trenchant  this  weapon  may  appear 
used  against  those  who  hold  to  this  “sym- 
metry” solution,  I fear  Mr.  Darwin  will 
find  it  a little  sword  which  cuts  both  ways 
before  he  is  through  with  it. 

If  snakes  descended  from  quadrupeds, 
no  evolutionist  can  assign  a particle  of 
reason,  in  science  or  philosophy,  why  the 
boa-constrictor  should  be  the  only  one 
which  retains  this  connecting  link  between 
the  form  of  the  serpent  and  that  of  the 
quadrupedal  ancestors.  As  the  smaller 
snakes  have  necessarily  more  recently 
branched  off  from  such  ancestral  form, 
they  have  had  less  time  to  retrograde,  and 
therefore  by  all  means  should  have  much 
more  clearly  defined  rudiments  of  legs  than 
their  older  cousin  the  boa!  To  say  that 
one  snake  developed  (!)  downward  from 
the  quadruped  and  that  all  the  other  spe- 
cies of  snakes,  appearing  exactly  the  same 
except  in  size,  developed  upward  from  the 
fish,  would  be  an  absurdity  too  preposte- 
rous to  palm  off  on  an  ignoramus  as  a zoo- 
logical joke.  It  is  clearly  evident,  there- 
fore, that  many  of  the  smaller  snakes 
should  not  only  have  rudimentary  leg- 
bones  the  same  as  the  boa,  but  some  of 
the  later  developments  from  quadrupeds 
should  have  legs  partly  useful  or  in  various 
transitional  stages  of  retrogression, — some, 


in  fact,  but  just  commencing  to  be  aborted, 
others  in  a more  advanced  stage  of  atrophy, 
and  so  on  down  to  the  boa’s  “little  bones”! 

1 he  ordinary  intuition  of  a scientific 
student,  if  not  blinded  by  the  insane  hy- 
potheses of  evolution,  such  as  these  rudi- 
mentary arguments,  would  at  once  lead 
him  to  scout  the  idea  that  one  snake  only 
retrograded  from  quadrupeds  while  all  the 
others  developed  from  the  fish.  He  would 
logically  come  to  the  conclusion  that  any 
other  explanation,  however  unsatisfactory, 
would  be  preferable  to  this  utterly  self- 
stultifying  assumption,  which  makes  the 
retrogression  of  the  boa  contradict  every 
possible  conception  or  definition  of  evolu- 
tion, such  as  development,  progression,  or 
survival  of  the  fittest.  My  hypothesis  fully 
and  satisfactorily  explains  these  rudiments 
of  legs  in  the  boa  alone, while  this  boasted 
theory  of  evolution — the  only  key  to  un- 
lock the  mystery  of  rudimentary  organs — 
does  not  pretend  to  give  even  the  shadow 
of  a reason  why  the  giant  boa  should  alone 
of  all  the  snakes  show  rudiments  of  legs. 

The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  whale 
tribe,  which  alone  of  all  the  fish-mammals 
have  these  rudimentary  leg-bones  beneath 
the  skin,  while  the  dugong,  grampus,  la- 
mantin,  manatus,  porpoise,  dolphin,  See., 
all  fish-mammals,  are  destitute  of  such  ru- 
diments. Mr.  Darwin  remarks: — 

“One  of  the  most  remarkable  peculiarities  in  the 
existing  dugong  and  lamantin  is  the  entire  absence 
of  hind  limbs,  without  even  a rudiment  being  left.” 
— Origin  of  Species,  p.  302. 

When  it  is  understood  that  evolutionists 
hold  that  whales  and  all  fish-mammals 
were  alike  degraded  from  land  quadrupeds 
and  hoofed  animals  to  their  present  dete- 
riorated condition,  we  can  comprehend 
Mr.  Darwin’s  remark  above — “without  even 
a rudiment  being  left.”  Professor  Haeckel 
says: — 

“It  is  probable  that  the  remarkable  legion  of 
•whales  (Cetacea)  originated  out  of  hoofed  animals , 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


449 


which  accustomed  themselves  exclusively  to  an 
aquatic  life,  and  thereby  became  transformed  into 
the  shape  of  fish." — History  of  Creation, v.ii.,  p.251. 

Evolutionists  seem  to  claim  the  right  to 
teach  anything,  however  absurd,  in  order 
to  explain  the  difficulties  met  with  in  de- 
fending evolution,  and  then  expect  people 
to  quit  thinking,  and  passively  subscribe 
to  it  as  “science.”  Thus,  with  all  the  ap- 
parent nonchalance  imaginable,  they  would 
have  us  believe  that  natural  selection  spent 
a hundred  million  years  in  evolving  a fish 
into  a bull,  horse,  elk,  or  some  other 
“hoofed  animal,”  and  then  spent  another 
hundred  million  years  in  degrading  it  back 
“into  the  shape  of  a fish,”  leaving  only  the 
rudimentary  leg-bones  and  incisors  found 
in  the  embryo  to  prove  its  remarkable 
history!  Yet  they  take  no  account  of  the 
fact  that  such  retrogression  from  the  land 
quadruped  back  into  the  fish  is  the  very 
opposite  of  evolution  — a transformation 
from  the  “complex”  and  “heterogeneous” 
back  into  the  “simple”  and  “homoge- 
neous.” If  this  going  backward  from  a 
hoofed  animal  down  to  the  fish  is  not  the 
very  opposite  of  all  ideas  of  evolution, 
then  the  development  of  the  horse  out  of 
a fish  in  the  first  place,  as  all  writers  on 
the  subject  teach,  can  not  be  evolution  at 
all,  thus  overthrowing  the  whole  Darwinian 
theory  at  a blow!  Will  some  one  of  these 
revolutionary  evolutionists  tell  us  which 
one  is  the  evolution  ?— the  going  upward 
or  the  going  downward? — the  going  for- 
ward into  the  “complex,”  or  the  returning 
backward  into  the  “simple”? — the  becom- 
ing “ heterogeneous”  by  a hundred  million 
years  of  variations  and  “progress”  from  the 
mollusk  through  the  fish  toward  the  hoofed 
animal,  or  the  change  to  the  “homoge- 
neous” through  the  fish  back  again  toward 
the  mollusk?  Assuredly  both  can  not  be 
evolution!  Again,  I ask,  which  of  these  is 
the  evolution  and  the  development? 


If  a hoofed  animal  can  by  evolution  be 
degraded  into  a fish,  may  not  the  fish  be 
degraded  into  a mollusk,  and  it  still  be 
called  “development”?  Does  my  evolu- 
tionary friend  reply  that  the  whale,  du- 
gong,  lamantin,&c.,  are  not  fishes  but  mam- 
mals, and  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  a 
quadruped  could  be  degraded  into  a real 
fish?  But  Professor  Haeckel  says,  as  re- 
cently quoted:  “The  same  thing  occurs  in 
many  genuine  fishes , in  which  the  hind  legs 
have  in  like  manner  been  lost."  If,  therefore, 
“genuine  fishes”  can  be  transformed  by 
development  and  evolution  from  a complex 
highly  organized  quadruped,  what  hinders 
them  from  continuing  on  in  this  downward 
course  of  development  to  those  “primeval 
parents  of  all  other  organisms” — the  origi- 
nal moneron?  If  this  is  possible  (and  it 
surely  is,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  this  kind 
of  back-action  evolution  and  development 
taught  by  Darwin  and  Haeckel),  then  how 
do  evolutionists  know  that  the  primal  mir- 
aculously createdAzmzof  Darwin  and  spon- 
taneously generated  moneron  of  Haeckel, 
were  not  actually  developed  from  ancient 
fishes  and  hoofed  animals  which  lived  in 
the  pre-Laurentian  period,  but  whose  pa- 
leontologic  remains  have  never  yet  been 
discovered,  or  by  age  have  disappeared 
from  the  geologic  record? 

If  species  can  develop  downward  as  well 
as  upward,  backward  as  well  as  forward, 
as  we  see  by  this  accommodating  kind  of 
evolution  taught  by  these  great  naturalists, 
— if  a quadruped  can  change  into  a fish 
and  a fish  into  a mollusk,  and  so  on  down, 
— then  there  may  be  deposits  far  below 
the  lowest  Silurian  strata  containing  pale- 
ontologic  remains  of  fishes,  reptiles,  birds, 
mammals,  and  even  monkeys  and  men, — 
which,  by  this  novel  kind  of  evolution,  in 
the  course  of  ages  developed  downward 
finally  into  the  moneron  and  larva,  when 
Darwin’s  present  system  of  evolution  com- 


450 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


mences!  When  this  pre-Silurian  deposit 
shall  have  been  found,  if  not  too  old,  Mr. 
Darwin  will  be  astonished  to  find  petrefac- 
tions  of  hoofed  animals  which  had  changed 
into  fish,  and  finally  into  “those  few  simple 
beings,”  where  his  evolution  the  other  way 
first  began.  He  has  by  no  means  a sure 
thing  on  the  geologic  record,  if  his  logic 
about  rudimentary  organs  is  worth  a sou. 
At  the  same  time  I see  no  difficulty  in  him 
and  Haeckel,  by  carrying  out  their  logic 
legitimately, staving  off  the  annoying  prob- 
lems of  creation  and  spontaneous  genera- 
tion indefinitely,  by  simply  assuming  the 
earth  to  be  eternal!  It  would  then  only 
require  them  to  keep  up  this  battledore 
and  shuttlecock  play  of  evolution  develop- 
ing a species  first  upward  and  then  down- 
ward, first  forward  and  then  backward; 
first  putting  legs  on  an  animal,  making  it 
a cow ; then  taking  them  off,  making  it  a 
fish ; and  it  would  not  require  half  as  much 
stretch  of  fancy  to  suppose  this  see-saw 
evolution  going  on  from  eternity,  after  the 
logic  is  once  admitted,  as  for  a living  crea- 
ture to  make  itself  by  coming  into  existence 
through  spontaneous  generation,  as  sup- 
posed by  Professor  Haeckel. 

Further,  if  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  be  true, 
the  dugong  and  lamantin  have  been  evi- 
dently much  more  recently  degraded  from 
hoofed  animals  to  the  life  of  the  fish  than 
have  the  whale  species  proper.  This  is 
proved  from  the  fact  that  the  whale  is 
vastly  larger ; and, in  the  second  place, that 
while  the  whale  is  carniverous,  having 
changed  its  mode  of  living  entirely,  the 
dugong  and  lamantin  continue  herbivorous, 
or  subsist  on  herbage  along  the  shores. 
Now,  would  not  ordinary  reason  and  re- 
spectable science  teach  us  that  the  more 
recently  transformed  herbiverous  dugong 
and  lamantin  should  still  have  rudimentary 
legs  and  embryonic  incisors,  if  such  rudi- 
ments originated  as  evolution  teaches? 


Mr.  Darwin,  as  just  quoted,  expresses  sur- 
prise that  not  even  a rudiment  of  legs  is 
“left”  in  these  herbiverous  fish-mammals! 
He  never  thinks  of  the  possible  fact  that 
they  never  had  any  legs,  that  the  whale 
and  boa-constrictor  never  had  any  either, 
and  that  this  whole  theory  of  degradation 
from  hoofed  animals  is  a bald  fiction ! It 
is  a complete  mystery  to  him,  unless  the 
whale  got  its  rudimentary  legs  by  being 
degraded  from  the  ox  or  some  o her  hoofed 
beast;  and  if  it  was  so  degraded,  then  the 
other  fish-mammals  (dugong  and  lamantin) 
must  have  been  also.  But  the  puzzle  then 
comes  up  in  Mr.  Darwin’s  mind,  why  do 
they  not  show  the  same  rudiments  as  the 
much  more  anciently  developed  whale  ? In 
fact,  the  whole  matter  of  rudimentary  or- 
gans, which  evolution  boasts  of  making 
as  clear  as  crystal  through  descent  by 
transmutation,  turns  out  to  be  a con- 
founded muddle  which  even  Darwin  him- 
self does  not  pretend  to  understand.  No 
evolutionist,  in  fact,  can  form  the  slightest 
idea  why  the  older  species  of  whales,  de- 
graded from  hoofed  animals,  should  retain 
rudimentary  leg-bones,  while  the  more  re- 
cent degradation  in  dugongs,  which  have 
not  had  time  to  change  their  habits  but 
still  eat  grass,  have  not  a vestige  of  the 
former  legs  and  incisors  of  their  ancestors! 
My  hypothesis,  which  will  be  soon  intro- 
duced, will  explain  it  fully,  without  resort- 
ing to  any  such  scientific  nonsense  as  work- 
ing a hundred  million  years  to  convert  a 
fish  into  a horse  and  then  a hundred  mil- 
lion years  longer  to  convert  the  same  horse 
back  into  a fish ! 

But  Darwin  and  Haeckel  also  refer,  in 
the  passages  quoted,  to  our  common  bovine 
ruminants,  such  as  the  cow,  which  are  de- 
void of  upper  front  teeth,  and  make  a strong 
point  on  these  rudimentary  incisors  found 
in  the  embryonic  calf  which  disappear  at 
or  before  birth.  They  ask,  triumphantly, 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


45i 


what  could  possibly  cause  these  rudiment- 
ary teeth  in  the  front  upper  jaw  of  the  em- 
bryo where  teeth  are  entirely  absent  in  the 
adult,  unless  the  cow  is  the  lineal  descend- 
ant of  some  ancient  species  of  hoofed  quad- 
rupeds which  had  a full  set  of  incisors 
above  and  below? 

This,  at  first  sight,  seems  a real  puzzle; 
and  it  has  hitherto  turned  out  to  be  such 
a genuine  scientific  conundrum  that  the 
whole  world,  judging  from  its  silence,  has 
given  it  up.  No  one  pretends  to  assign 
any  kind  of  a natural  or  scientific  reason, 
plausible  or  improbable,  save  the  one  here 
given  by  evolution,  namely,  descent  from 
an  ancient  species  of  animals  having  teeth 
complete.  Does  this  answer  meet  the  case? 
I will  now  show,  from  several  weighty  con- 
siderations, that  this  phenomenon  has  and 
can  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  de- 
scent by  transmutation  from  ancestors' with 
teeth  complete,  after  which  I will  gradually 
but  surely  develop  the  hypothesis  which 
will  scientifically  and  rationally  explain  it 
and  all  the  other  rudimentary  problems 
under  discussion. 

As  we  saw  in  the  argument  on  reversion- 
ary action,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
no  development  of  a long-lost  structure  is 
even  claimed  by  Mr.  Darwin  to  occur  in 
descendants  only  through  a small  remnant 
of  ancestral  blood  or  corporeal  substance 
remaining  in  the  reverting  organism,  I need 
only  remind  the  reader  that  the  arguments 
in  that  case  are  clearly  applicable  to  these 
rudimentary  embryonic  teeth  in  calves, 
since  they  are  as  much  reversions,  in  every 
sense  of  the  word,  as  they  are  rudimentary 
organs,  if  they  are  the  reproduction  of 
long-lost  ancestral  characters,  as  claimed. 

The  reader  will  distinctly  remember, 
from  the  table  there  given,  that  the  enor- 
mous dilution  of  ancestral  blood  after  only 
one  hundred  generations,  if  such  blood  con- 
tinues at  all  from  one  generation  to  another, 


was  sufficient  to  prove  the  utter  impossi- 
bility of  such  reversions  being  caused,  as 
evolutionists  assume,  through  physical  de- 
scent from  other  organic  and  ancestral 
forms.  He  will  also  remember  that  a final 
scientific  demonstration  was  given, showing 
the  absolute  impossibility  of  reversions 
being  caused  by  physical  descent  at  all, — 
since,  if  any  corporeal  atoms,  such  as  blood, 
do  descend  with  the  child  from  the  parents, 
such  physical  substance  is  utterly  oblit- 
erated and  substituted  by  new  materials  in 
a few  years  after  birth,  thus  cutting  off  all 
physical  connection  between  children  and 
parents  even  before  such  offspring  arrive  at 
maturity;  and  as  evolutionists  (and  I may 
add  physiologists)  do  not  believe  in  or 
recognize  any  other  substantial  organism 
existing  within  or  forming  the  identity  of 
a living  creature,  save  the  corporeal  blood 
ar.d  structure,  it  was  declared  and  is  still 
declared  an  unequivocal  scientific  demon- 
stration that  no  such  thing  as  a reversion 
could  take  place,  according  to  evolution, 
even  as  far  back  as  to  the  second  link  in 
the  ancestral  chain. 

This,  therefore,  demonstrably  proves  that 
the  teeth  in  the  embryonic  calf  can  not  be 
produced  by  physical  descent  from  some 
ancient  ancestor  of  the  cow  having  teeth 
complete,  since  she  can  not  by  any  possi- 
bility retain  an  atom  of  such  ancestral 
blood  or  corporeal  structure. 

I might  safely  leave  these  rudimentary 
problems  here  as  completely  wrenched 
from  the  grasp  of  evolution,  but  I propose 
to  go  further.  If  the  cow  or  the  bovine 
genus  ever  had  upper  incisors,  what  could 
have  possibly  caused  their  loss?  Not  the 
fact  of  such  incisors  having  become  use- 
less, for  their  absence  has  caused  many  a 
bovine  animal  to  lose  its  life  by  being  un- 
able thereby  to  bite  off  heavy  twigs  in 
browsing,  to  gnaw  the  bark  from  saplings, 
or  to  crop  the  stunted  grass,  which  a goat, 


452 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


with  f;i )’  incisors,  would  grow  fat  upon. 
Such  incisors,  if  they  ever  existed  in  that 
species  or  in  their  lineal  progenitors, could 
Hot  have  been  lost  by  natural  selection, 
because  Mr.  Darwin  teaches,  in  a score  of 
places,  in  the  most  unequivocal  language, 
that  natural  selection  can  only  act  for  the 
good  of  each  species,  as  the  very  phrase 
“survival  of  the  fittest”  implies.  I will 
quete  here  a few  additional  passages, which 
will  give,  however,  but  a specimen  of  his 
teaching  on  this  point.  He  says: — 

“Natural  selection  acts  through  one  form  having 
Some  advantage  over  other  forms  in  the  struggle  for 
existence.” 

“Natural  selection  acts  exclusively  through  the 
preservation  of profitable  modifications  of  structure.” 
“If  any  one  varies  ever  so  little  either  in  habits 
or  structure, and  thus  gains  an  advantage  over  some 
other  inhabitant  of  the  same  country,  it  will  seize 
on  the  place  of  that  inhabitant.” 

“Natural  selection  acts  exclusively  by  the  pre- 
servation of  variations  which  are  advantageous.” 
“Only  those  variations  which  are  in  some  wap 
profitable  will  be  preserved  or  naturally  selected.” 
“Several  writers  have  misapprehended  or  ob- 
jected to  the  term  natural  selection.  Some  have 
even  imagined  that  natural  selection  induces  vari- 
ability, whereas  it  implies  only  the  preservation  of 
Stick  variations  as  arise  and  are  beneficial  to  the 
being  under  its  conditions  of  life.” 

“This  preservation  of  favorable  individual  differ- 
ences and  variations  and  the  destruction  of  those 
which  are  injurious  [like  a toothless  upper  jaw] 

I have  called  natural  selection  or  the  survival  of 
the  fittest.” 

“Natural  selection  acts  by  life  and  death , — by 
the  survival  of  the  fittest , and  by  the  destruction 
of  the  less  well- fitted  individuals." 

“ Individuals  having  any  advantage,  however 
slight,  over  others,  would  have  the  best  chance  of 
surviving  and  of  propagating  their  kind.  On  the 
other  hand  we  may  feel  sure  that  any  variation  in 
the  least  degree  injurious  [such  as  a toothless  upper 
jaw  in  a calf  occurring  in  a species  with  full  sets  of 
incisors]  would  be  rigidly  destroyed.” — Darwin, 
Origin  of  Species , pp.  63,  90,  96,  143,  156.  Animals 
and  Plants,  vol.  i.,  pp.  18, 19. 

Now,  as  natural  selection  can  act  only 
for  the  good  of  a species,  and  as  survival 
of  the  fittest  will  invariably  preserve  the 


best-adapted  offspring  which  may  arise  in 
a species,  while  those  which  chance  to  vary 
unfavorably  will  be  “ rigidly  destroyed ,”  the 
common  intelligence  of  every  reader  will 
show  him  that  had  an  ancient  calf  been 
born  without  upper  teeth  when  the  whole 
bovine  tribe  had  complete  upper  and  lower 
incisors,  natural  selection  and  survival  of 
the  fittest  would  at  once  have  rejected  such 
a defective  specimen  as  unfit  to  survive,  the 
same  as  if  it  had  been  born  with  but  three 
legs;  and  instead  of  having  become  the 
founder  and  head  of  a new  genus,  which, 
from  superiority,  would  lead  to  the  exter- 
mination of  the  parents  with  their  full  sets 
of  teeth,  such  an  unfortunate  abnormity 
would  have  been  rejected  at  once,  and  left 
to  die  under  the  pitiless  contempt  of  Dar- 
win’s great  law  of  natural  selection  and 
survival  of  the  fittest;  and  the  toothless 
jawbone,  instead  of  becoming  the  ruling 
genus,  would  never  have  again  been  heard 
of  unless  a similar  freak  of  Nature  should 
have  happened  to  occur, — which  would,  of 
course,  have  shared  a similar  fate. 

It  must  therefore  strike  every  reader,  as 
the  only  admissible  view  to  take,  that  such 
a monstrosity  and  comparatively  helpless 
deformity  as  a toothless  when  the  whole 
tribe  to  which  it  belonged  had  full  sets  of 
teeth  above  and  below, would  have  perished 
before  arriving  at  maturity  or  being  able 
to  transmit  its  peculiarity,  as  among  the 
unfit  to  survive,  if  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory 
contains  the  least  bit  of  truth  in  regard  to 
the  powers  of  “natural  selection”  and 
“survival  of  the  fittest.”  May  I not  there- 
fore assert,  without  the  slightest  fear  of  it 
ever  being  successfully  contradicted,  that 
such  a deformity  could  not  have  been  pre- 
served under  survival  of  the  fittest,  occur- 
ring, as  it  must  have  done,  as  a manifest 
deterioration  of  the  race,  if  there  is  a grain 
of  meaning  in  the  universal  definition  of 
natural  selection  given  by  evolutionists? 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


453 


Hence,  as  here  is  one  clear  instance  of 
a species  which  natural  selection  and  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  could  not  have  possibly 
produced,  since  they  work  exactly  in  the 
opposite  direction,  evolution  is  not  only 
overthrown  by.  its  own  argument,  but  we 
have  an  undeniable  demonstration  of  at 
least  one  highly  organized  species  having 
been  produced  by  miraculous  creation! 
As  quoted  a few  pages  back,  Mr.  Darwin 
himself  agrees  that  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
any  “complex  organ”  exists  which  could 
not  have  been  produced  by  natural  selec- 
tion through  the  accumulation  of  slight 
modifications,  it  would  absolutely  break 
down  his  theory,  as  such  an  organ  must 
necessarily  have  come  by  special  or  mirac- 
ulous creation!  Since,  therefore,  evolu- 
tionists admit,  in  this  rudimentary  argu- 
ment, that  the  bovine  genus,  with  all  its 
“complex  organs,”  could  only  have  sprung 
from  a completely  toothed  race  of  animals, 
and  as  I have  conclusively  demonstrated 
that  it  could  not  have  so  descended  by 
survival  of  the  fittest,  it  clearly  demon- 
strates its  miraculous  origin!  Was  there 
ever  any  thing  clearer  or  more  logical  than 
this  ? 

The  reader  has  thus  found  that  my 
pledge,  made  a little  while  ago,  to  demon- 
strate the  origin  of  at  least  one  highly  or- 
ganized species  by  miraculous  creation 
turns  out  to  be  no  scientific  joke,  but  a 
clear  and  unanswerable  demonstration,  ac- 
cording to  this  rudimentary  position  of 
evolutionists. 

I have  thus  not  only  broken  down  Mr. 
Darwin’s  theory  by  “demonstrating”  that 
there  is  one  “complex  organ”  (the  extent 
of  his  stipulation)  which  could  not  “pos- 
sibly” have  been  “formed”  by  natural  se- 
lection, but  that  there  is  a whole  animal 
with  all  its  organs,  and  an  entire  genus  of 
these  animals,  now  existing,  which,  if  there 
is  the  least  consistency  in  his  definitions, 


could  not  “possibly”  have  been  formed 
by  evolution  or  natural  selection,  because 
evolution,  Mr.  Spencer  tells  us,  can  only 
deVelop  from  the  simple  to  the  complex 
and  from  the  homogeneous  to  the  hetero- 
geneous, while  natural  selection  can  only 
preserve  the  fittest.  I appeal  to  the  intel- 
ligence of  my  readers  if  Mr.  Darwin’s 
theory  does  not  therefore  “ absolutely  break 
down,” according  to  his  own  explicit  agree- 
ment? But  as  I shall  have  occasion  to  re- 
cur to  this  in  a future  chapter,  with  even 
more  fatal  effects,  if  anything,  I will  leave 
it  for  the  present  just  where  it  is,  with  the 
theory  of  modern  evolution  again  fallen 
to  the  ground,  by  this  unfortunate  but 
clear  stipulation  of  its  author  and  chief 
exponent. 

It  will  be  remembered,  as  I showed  at 
the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  that  if  the 
miraculous  creation  of  a species  better  cor- 
responded with  all  the  facts,  phenomena, 
and  circumstances  involved, than  any  other 
hypothesis  brought  to  bear  on  the  ques- 
tion, then  the  miraculous  view  of  the  case 
would  be  inevitably  the  scientific  view. 
No  man  can  dispute  this  position,  if  he 
pays  the  least  regard  to  the  true  significa- 
tion of  the  word  “science,”  as  given  by 
Professor  Huxley  and  Mr.  Spencer.  Fur- 
ther, as  it  is  clearly  established  by  un- 
questioned authorities  (Darwin,  Huxley, 
and  Spencer,)  that  all  “evolution,”  with- 
out exception,  and  all  “development,” 
must  “ tend  to  progress  toward  perfection ,” 
is  from  the  homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous, 
from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the 
few  parts  to  the  7nultiplicity  of  parts, — it  be- 
comes a clear  demonstration,  as  just  inti- 
mated, that  the  cow  could  never  have  lost 
her  upper  teeth  by  evolution  or  develop- 
ment, since  the  destruction  of  such  organs 
is  exactly  the  reverse  of  evolution  in  every 
possible  meaning  of  development,  natural 
selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest!  While 


454 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


evolution  is  toward  the  multiplicity  of  parts 
or  heterogeneity,  the  destruction  of  these 
six  or  eight  teeth  would  have  been  directly 
toward  uniorganism  or  homogeneity.  While 
the  loss  of  these  incisors  is  directly  toward 
the  indefinite,  all  evolution  and  develop- 
ment, Spencer  says,  is  exactly  the  other 
way,  or  toward  the  definite.  While  the 
destruction  or  the  taking  away  from  the 
cow  of  a number  of  her  important  and  dis- 
tinct organs  is  a direct  move  from  the 
complex  toward  the  simple,  all  evolution, 
says  this  greatest  authority,  and  all  develop- 
ment, is  right  the  other  way,  or  from  the 
simple  to  the  complex.  So  self-evident  a 
truism,  and  one  so  well  understood  and 
defined,  can  not  and  will  not  be  called  in 
question  by  any  candid  reader. 

Then,  it  becomes  settled  to  actual  dem- 
onstration that  as  natural  selection,  survi- 
val of  the  fittest,  evolution,  development, 
or  whatever  word  you  please  to  employ, 
could  not  have  produced  this  specific  struc- 
ture from  a genus  having  perfect  teeth, 
since  they  all  operate  exactly  in  the  oppo- 
site direction,  I have  therefore  redeemed 
my  promise  and  demonstrated  scientific- 
ally, and  by  the  testimony  of  evolutionists 
themselves,  that  the  bovine  genus  origi- 
nated by  miraculous  creation!  Advocates 
of  evolution  have  no  conceivable  way  of 
evading  this  dilemma,  except  to  abandon 
their  position  and  frankly  admit  that  this 
cow  did  not  descend  from  a species  having 
full  sets  of  teeth  above  and  below,  and  in 
so  doing  they  hopelessly  give  up  the  rudi- 
mentary argument;  for,  if  these  incisors 
found  in  the  embryonic  calf  do  not  come 
through  descent  by  transmutation, then  the 
bottom  falls  out  of  the  theory  of  modern 
evolution,  since  the  whole  explanation  of 
Darwin  and  Haeckel  is  a self-confessed 
scientific  fallacy.  Which  horn  of  this  inev- 
itable dilemma  they  will  accept  remains  for 
evolutionists  to  determine.  There  is  surely 


no  escape  from  both,  since  it  is  either  the 
miraculous  origin  of  the  species  or  the 
abandonment  of  the  rudimentary  problem! 

But  I ask  no  admissions,  nor  conces- 
sions, nor  compromises,  on  the  part  of  evo- 
lution, to  aid  the  complete  overthrow  of 
this  rudimentary  argument,  and  to  turn  it 
fatally  against  every  principle  involved  in 
Mr.  Darwin’s  law  of  natural  selection. 
The  self-annihilation  of  so  monstrous  an 
absurdity  as  that  the  bovine  genus  lost  its 
upper  teeth  by  development  (!)  from  an- 
cestors having  complete  sets  of  teeth  in 
both  jaws,  becomes  apparent  as  soon  as 
the  case  is  stated,  and  the  more  such  a 
scientific  and  logical  incongruity  is  turned' 
over  and  looked  at  the  more  laughably 
absurd  it  becomes.  That  evolution — which 
means  “progress  toward  perfection,”  de- 
velopment from  the  homogeneous  to  the 
heterogeneous,  and  survival  of  the  fittest, 
— should,  as  seen  in  the  case  of  the  boa- 
constrictor  and  whale,  work  a million  years 
to  produce  perfect  incisors  in  the  ancestor 
of  the  cow,  and  then  turn  round  and  work 
another  million  years  to  take  them  away 
and  leave  the  naked  gums,  is  not  only 
destitute  of  consistency,  but  is  simply 
ridiculous  ; and  the  inculcation  of  such  an 
absurdity  could  only  be  regarded  as  a gen- 
uine travesty  on  science,  had  we  not  the 
most  conclusive  evidence  that  it  is  se- 
riously advanced  by  evolutionists  as  among 
their  very  strongest  arguments.  Accord- 
ingly, it  turns  out  to  be,  with  these  sage 
naturalists,  all  evolution,  let  it  go  which  way 
it  will.  It  is  all  development , whether  it 
takes  a species  forward  toward  the  com- 
plex and  heterogeneous,  or  backward  to- 
ward the  simple  and  homogeneous.  It  is 
all  “progress  toward  perfection,”  whether 
it  elevates  or  degrades  the  species,  whether 
it  gives  it  an  organ  or  takes  it  away,  with- 
out the  least  regard  to  its  utility  or  neces- 
sity; whether  it  retrogrades  an  animal 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


455 


down  toward  the  mollusk  or  advances  it 
up  toward  the  quadrumana,  it  becomes 
equally  “survival  of  the  fittest.”  Thus, 
evolution  can  mean  up  or  down,  forward 
or  backward,  anything  or  nothing,  which- 
ever will  for  the  time  being  best  subserve 
the  interests  of  this  contradictory  system. 

If  natural  selection,  or  any  other  known 
or  unknown  influence,  should  take  away 
the  cow’s  lower  teeth  (if  it  would  only  leave 
rudiments  in  the  embryonic  calf  which 
might  seem  to  favor  evolution),  it  would 
be  seized  upon  by  these  writers  and  pro- 
claimed as  a proof  of  development , without 
the  slightest  regard  as  to  what  “develop- 
ment” signifies.  If  some  unknown  cause 
should  partly  abort  the  cow’s  lower  jaw  and 
take  away  one  half  of  it,  leaving  her  so  she 
could  barely  eat  grass,  it  would  stiM  be  a 
clear  case  of  evolution;  and,  on  the  same 
basis  of  reasoning,  if  the  cow  should  finally 
become  acephalous  by  losing  her  whole 
head,  if  she  could  only  manage  somehow 
to  live,  it  would  demonstrate  “survival  of 
the  fittest,”  provided  a rudimentary  head 
should  be  found  in  some  embryonic  calf! 

The  truth  is,  had  evolutionists  been  half 
as  shrewd  as  they  have  tried  to  be,  or  as 
they  have  received  credit  for  being,  they 
would  have  foreseen  this  unenviable  self- 
stultification of  their  theory,  and  would 
have  cautiously  steered  clear  of  the  rudi- 
mentary argument  altogether,  and  thus 
have  kept  out  of  this  inevitable  trap  of 
their  own  setting,  which  has  so  clearly  ar- 
rayed evolution  against  itself.  It  seems  al- 
most ludicrous  that  they  should  thus  stake 
their  cause  on  rudimentary  organs,  when 
the  moment  the  trap  is  sprung  on  them 
they  are  not  only  caught  by  the  miraculous 
creation  of  the  bovine  genus,  which  Mr. 
Darwin  says  “absolutely”  breaks  down  his 
theory,  but  it  reverses  and  turns  topsy- 
turvy everything  in  the  shape  of  evolution, 
natural  selection,  and  survival  of  the  fittest, 


leaving  the  entire  system  of  development 
an  absurd  mass  of  contradictions,  all  for 
the  sake  of  a few  rudimentary  teeth  in  an 
embryonic  calf! 

Had  this  author  of  modern  evolution 
possessed  with  his  other  knowledge  a little 
ordinary  business  talent  and  shrewdness, 
he  would  have  given  special  attention  to 
the  bovine  genus,  particularly  on  account 
of  this  apparently  monstrous  defect  of  a 
toothless  upper  jaw;  and,  instead  of  stul- 
tifying and  absolutely  overthrowing  the 
theory  of  descent,  by  proving,  as  he  tried 
to  do,  that  the  species  had  retrograded 
from  ancestors  having  perfect  teeth,  and 
thus  developed  backward  by  becoming  tooth- 
less., he  should  never  so  much  as  have 
hinted  “rudimentary  organs,”  and  thus  let 
slip  one  of  his  best  arguments,  but  should 
have  gone  to  work  in  a quiet  way  to  prove 
that  these  embryonic  teeth  in  the  calf  were 
a direct  proof  of  evolution,  development, 
and  approaching  transmutation. 

It  would  have  been  easy  to  assume  that 
the  cow  had  descended  from  some  tooth- 
less race  of  animals,  since  which  she  had 
developed  her  molars  and  her  lower  inci- 
sors, and  would,  in  the  course  of  time,  no 
doubt  possess  complete  sets  of  teeth  above 
as  well  as  below ; and,  as  a proof  of  such 
a prospective  transmutation,  could  have 
triumphantly  referred  to  the  embryonic  in- 
cisors in  the  upper  jaw  of  the  calf,  showing 
that  the  cow  was  still  in  the  hands  of  natu- 
ral selection,  and  that  by  survival  of  the 
fittest  the  teeth  thus  foreshadowed  in  the 
embryo  would  in  time  become  fully  de- 
veloped! Instead  of  this  brilliant  piece  of 
evolutionary  engineering  and  transmuta- 
tion tactics,  this  deliberate  blunderer  failed 
to  see  the  point  of  advantage  he  might 
make,  but  fastened  upon  the  embryonic 
incisors  in  the  upper  jaw  of  the  calf  as  ru- 
dimentary organs,  and  as  a direct  proof 
that  the  whole  evolution  hypothesis  was  an 


456 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


absurdity,  since  the  cow  must  have  retro- 
graded from  ancestors  having  complete  sets 
of  teeth,  thus  innocently  overthrowing  the 
very  idea  of  evolution,  development,  or 
survival  of  the  fittest,  as  an  ordinary  school- 
boy might  have  told  him, — since  such  de- 
terioration necessarily  signifies  exactly  the 
opposite  of  this  terminology. 

How  beautifully  and  irresistibly  also 
could  he  have  utilized  the  little  leg-bones 
in  the  body  of  the  boa-constrictor  as  a 
proof  that  quadrupeds  had  developed  from 
legless  reptiles,  and  would  no  doubt  do  so 
again  ! For  here  is  the  largest  and  reason- 
ably the  oldest  serpent,  he  could  have 
logically  urged,  just  beginning  to  show 
signs  of  developing  hind  legs, — which,  by 
survival  of  the  fittest,  would  in  time  come 
through  the  skin  and  differentiate  into  feet 
and  toes!  It  is  difficult  at  present,  even 
with  a good  deal  of  reflection,  to  see  just 
how  such  an  argument  would  have  to  be 
met.  But,  instead  of  taking  advantage  of 
such  a fortunate  circumstance,  Mr.  Darwin 
unaccountably  throws  away  the  opportu- 
nity, proclaims  these  little  leg-bones  in  the 
giant  boa  as  aborted  or  “rudimentary  or- 
gans,” thus  using  them  as  conclusive  proof 
that  this  serpent  had  once  been  a quadru- 
ped, and  that  its  legs,  which  could  never 
have  been  otherwise  than  useful,  had  been 
atrophied  and  taken  away  by  evolution , 
development , and  survival  of  the  fittest ! — 
while  at  the  same  time  declaring  those 
words  to  mean  exactly  the  opposite! 

Is  it  not  clearly  evident  and  natural,  if 
all  quadrupeds  have  been  developed  from 
legless  reptiles  and  fishes,  as  evolution 
teaches,  that  some  instances  of  partly  de- 
veloped legs  should  be  found  in  some  of 
these  legless  species?  That  such  a com- 
mencement of  legs  in  the  form  of  “little 
bones”  beneath  the  skin  can  not  be  found 
even  once  among  the  countless  species  of 
legless  fishes  and  reptiles  would  seem  to 


be  a direct  proof  that  no  such  develop- 
ment of  quadrupedal  species  from  legless 
animals  ever  took  place.  We  are  forced 
to  this  conclusion  by  evolutionists  them- 
selves; for  the  moment  they  find  in  the 
boa-constrictor  little  leg-bones  beneath 
the  skin  indicating  such  incipient  evolu- 
tion, instead  of  shrewdly  claiming  them  as 
the  important  connecting  link,  and  the 
prophecy  of  transmutation, — the  orderly 
progression  toward  future  legs, — these 
writers  demonstrate  their  own  assinine 
descent  by  coolly  rejecting  the  most  im- 
portant proof  of  transmutation  ever  found 
in  natural  history,  by  assuming  these  little 
bones  to  be  the  remnants  of  lost  legs  which 
had  once  been  perfectly  differentiated, — 
thus  turning  the  whole  system  of  develop- 
ment, revolution,  natural  selection,  and 
survival  of  the  fittest,  against  itself. 

The  same  thing  is  equally  true  of  the 
little  leg-bones  found  in  the  hinder  portion 
of  the  body  of  the  whale,  and  of  the  teeth 
found  in  the  Cetacean  embryo.  How  pro- 
vokingly  could  Professor  Haeckel  have 
gratified  his  inclination  had  he  possessed 
even  the  sagacity  of  his  near  relative  the 
chimpanzee;  and  how  triumphantly  he 
could  have  challenged  his  opponents  to 
“show  a shadow  of  explanation”  of  these 
direct  proofs  that  the  whale  was  gradually 
approaching  quadrupedal  form  and  the 
anatomy  of  hoofed  animals  ! But  he  lacked 
the  business  shrewdness  to  comprehend 
the  situation.  He  could  have  argued  with 
a plausibility  which  he  has  never  begun  to 
show  in  any  of  his  writings,  that  the  du- 
gong,  lamantin,  porpoise,  and  dolphin, 
though  having  made  sufficient  advances 
from  the  common  fish  under  natural  selec- 
tion to  become  mammals , and  some  of  them 
to  become  herhiverous  in  habit,  yet  being 
younger  in  order  of  development  from  gen- 
uine fishes  than  the  whale,  they  had,  as 
Mr.  Darwin  says,  not  a vestige  of  leg-bones 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


457 


in  their  bodies;  whereas  the  whale  being  of 
earlier  origin,  or  having  earlier  developed 
into  a mammal,  had  made  greater  progress 
toward  quadrupedal  anatomy,  and  conse- 
quently had  already  developed  permanent 
leg-bones  in  the  hinder  portions  of  the 
body,  and  even  already  showed  the  teeth 
of  hoofed  animals  beginning  to  develop  in 
the  embryo ! I assert  that  no  argument 
half  so  plausible  or  puzzling  in  favor  of 
the  theory  of  development  as  this  would 
have  been,  can  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
writings  of  Mr.  Darwin  or  any  other  advo- 
cate of  evolution.  In  fact,  the  very  strong- 
est argument  ever  produced  is  as  nothing 
compared  to  this.  Yet,  astonishing  as  it 
seems,  these  writers  have  all  lacked  the 
genius  necessary  to  the  emergencies  of 
their  difficult  position;  and, instead  of  util- 
izing these  little  leg-bones  and  embryonic 
teeth  in  the  whale  as  a proof  of  progressive 
development  toward  higher  mammiferous 
forms  of  being,  they  have  quietly  assisted 
evolution  in  becoming  a scientific  felo  de  se. 
They  have,  as  before  shown,  assumed  the 
suicidal  position  that  after  evolution  had 
wrought  through  millions  of  years  to  de- 
velop a hoofed  quadruped  from  the  fish, 
the  mollusk,  and  the  polyp,  or  sponge,  it 
had  taken  the  back  track,  and  had  already 
reduced  it  to  the  form  of  a fish,  and  was 
in  a fair  way  of  retrograding  it  still  lower 
to  an  actual  fish,  then  to  an  oyster,  and 
finally  back  to  a mammoth  moneron! 

The  true  way  to  meet  evolution,  the 
reader  will  see,  is  to  show  exactly  what  it 
is  doing  for  itself,  and  how  successfully 
its  advocates  are  succeeding  in  overturn- 
ing their  arguments  in  favor  of  the  theory 
as  fast  as  they  can  build  them  up.  There 
can  be  no  clearer  proof  furnished  in  refu- 
tation of  any  theory  than  its  own  utter 
want  of  consistency,  especially  when  it  is 
compelled,  in  order  to  account  for  a phe- 
nomenon, to  stultify  and  repudiate  its  own 


terminology  and  reverse  the  entire  cata- 
logue of  its  own  established  definitions  to 
meet  emergencies. 

Had  Mr.  Darwin  consulted  the  writer 
when  he  was  about  developing  his  rudi- 
mentary argument  on  the  bovine  toothless 
upper  jaw,  for  example,  and  the  embryonic 
incisors  found  in  the  calf,  he  would  surely 
have  been  persuaded  to  change  his  tactics 
if  he  had  the  least  regard  for  his  own  defi- 
nitions of  evolution,  development,  natural 
selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest.  I would 
have  modestly  suggested  that  the  cow  was 
a peculiar  instance  of  “lateral  develop- 
ment,” if  not  from  the  original  comb- 
medusa  at  least  a lineal  descendant  of  the 
soft-shell  crab,  with  her  horns  probably 
derived  in  passing  through  the  form  of  the 
original  toothless  catfish.  There  would 
then  be  no  difficulty  in  securing  her  con- 
nection with  the  order  of  hoofed  quadru- 
peds by  supposing  the  line  to  pass  through 
some  primeval  edentate  species  of  mammal 
which  must  have  been  completely  tooth- 
less, since  its  descendants  are  almost  des- 
titute of  teeth  to  the  present  day,  while 
some  ancient  sloth  could  easily  be  shown 
to  have  had  hoofs  by  one  of  Prof. Haeckel’s 
“monographs.”  How  naturally  and  con- 
sistently with  the  progressive  meaning  of 
“development”  and  “evolution”  would 
these  facts  present  themselves  to  the  reader, 
and  how  clearly  would  they  harmonize  with 
the  present  condition  of  the  cow’s  teeth,  so 
unlike  those  of  all  other  animals;  and  what 
a splendid  assumption  in  favor  of  Darwin- 
ism that  the  cow  has  probably  developed 
her  lower  teeth  complete,  and  her  molars 
in  the  upper  jaw,  since  she  branched  off 
from  the  edentata,and  must  no  doubt  in  a 
short  time — say  a couple  of  million  years 
— have  also  a full  set  of  upper  incisors,  as 
is  clearly  indicated  by  the  presence  of  such 
teeth  in  the  embryonic  calf!  But  instead 
of  such  a “systematic  survey,”  which 


458 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


would  have  kept  clear  of  teeth  all  the  way 
up  except  as  they  were  gradually  and  con- 
sistently developed,  Mr.  Darwin,  like  a 
scientific  lunatic,  reversed  the  “mono- 
graph,” gave  the  cow  a full  set  of  teeth 
by  natural  selection  preserving  from  age 
to  age  “numerous  slight  successive  modi- 
fications,” and  then  put  some  kind  of  an 
unheard-of  back-action  process  of  evolu- 
tion to  work  at  her  jaw  taking  them 
away ! 

I have  before  shown,  I think  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  reader,  that  upper  front  teeth 
would  have  always  been  useful  and  would 
even  now  be  of  great  service  to  the  cow; 
and  that  therefore  natural  selection, which 
acts  only  for. the  good  of  a species,  could 
not  have  aborted  them.  I now  wish  to  say 
that  there  is  only  one  way  in  Nature  by 
which  any  organ  which  once  was  useful 
can  possibly  become  aborted  or  atrophied, 
unless  by  some  accidental  physical  injury 
(which  would  be  confined  to  the  individual 
thus  injured),  and  that  is  by  the  owner  of 
such  organ  ceasing  entirely  and  absolutely  to 
use  it  for  a long  interval  of  time.  If  the 
same  conditions,  which  might  thus  entirely 
prevent  the  use  of  the  organ,  should  extend 
to  all  the  offspring,  the  atrophy  would  be 
inherited,  and  become  more  and  more 
marked  each  generation,  till  at  length  the 
function  might  cease,  if  even  the  form  of 
the  organ  itself  should  remain.  By  the 
same  law  an  organ  will  increase  in  capacity 
and  strength  by  extra  use  if  exercised  with- 
in temperate  restrictions.  It  is  this  law  of 
absolute  disuse  which  has  made  cave-rats 
and  fishes  sightless,  though  the  atrophied 
organ  is  still  present,  showing  that  such 
rats  and  fishes  once  had  perfect  eyes,  but 
by  being  confined  within  these  regions  of 
rayless  darkness  for  many  generations, 
through,  at  present,  unknown  causes,  and 
having  no  use  for  the  organs  of  vision,  they 
finally  lost  their  function.  This  may  also 


I and  doubtless  does  apply  to  the  wings  of 
certain  birds,  which,  from  being  so  situated 
for  many  generations  as  not  to  be  required 
to  fly,  the  wings  have  become  finally  so  far 
aborted  as  not  to  be  available  for  flight. 
Other  cases  may  come  under  this  head. 
But  the  cow’s  teeth  can  never  rank  in  this 
class,  nor  can  any  other  organ  while  used 
at  all.  She  has  always  been  compelled  to 
use  her  teeth,  and  that  constantly,  if  she 
ever  had  them,  or  she  would  have  starved, 
since  she  could  not  have  used  her  mouth 
at  all  without  using  her  teeth.  Thus,  the 
only  possible  means  or  conditions  for  the 
degeneracy  and  loss  of  these  incisors  have 
always  been  absent,  and  are  found  to  be 
inapplicable  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
to  that  class  of  organs;  and  hence,  no  ar- 
gument based  on  atrophy  from  disuse  has 
the  least  application  to  the  cow,  while  all 
arguments  and  considerations  conspire  to 
show  that  she  never  descended  from  a per- 
fectly toothed  species,  but  must  have  origi- 
nated by  special  creation,  according  to  the 
very  mode  of  reasoning  by  which  evolu- 
tionists have  sought  to  prove  the  contrary! 

I have  thus  redeemed  my  first  pledge, 
given  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter,  in 
which  I promised  to  show  by  unanswerable 
arguments  that  rudimentary  organs,  so  far 
from  supporting  evolution  or  proving  de- 
scent by  transmutation,  were  absolutely 
and  directly  opposed  to  such  an  hypoth- 
esis. It  has  been  shown, clearly  I trust,  that 
the  very  meaning  of  “evolution”  and  “de- 
velopment,” according  to  all  authority  and 
all  ideas  of  fitness,  is  distinctly  opposed  to 
the  destruction  of  any  useful  organ,  or  any 
organ  whatever  while  used  in  the  slightest 
degree , since  it  would  be  a retrograde 
movement.  Had  there  been,  for  example, 
the  least  glimmer  of  light  in  the  deep  re- 
cesses of  the  Kentucky  Mammoth  Cave, 
the  rats  and  fishes  confined  there,  instead 
of  becoming  sightless,  would  have  had 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


459 


their  visual  sense  improved  and  their  eyes 
developed  to  suit  these  almost  rayless 
regions. 

The  unprehensile  tails  of  all  animals  are 
about  the  legist  useful  organs  which  we 
can  suppose  to  exist, yet  from  the  remotest 
epoch  of  mammal  life  on  this  earth  their 
almost  infinitesimal  amount  of  employ- 
ment (wagging)  has  been  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent their  loss  or  even  reduction  by  atrophy. 
Is  it  at  all  supposable,  then,  that  the  fully 
differentiated  legs  of  a quadruped,  con- 
stantly and  unavoidably  in  use,  such  as 
those  of  a whale,  would  become  completely 
aborted  by  the  animal  having  accustomed 
itself  to  an  “aquatic  life,”  and  thus  have 
changed  a hoofed  quadruped  into  a fish, 
as  these  writers  teach?  The  thing  must 
be  absurd  on  its  face,  if  the  almost  useless 
tails  of  animals  can  thus  retain  their  full 
perfection  since  the  very  dawn  of  mammal 
life.  Besides,  no  aquatic  habit  could  make 
any  animal  suspend  the  use  of  its  legs  and 
feet,  as  witness  the  hippopotamus,  beaver, 
otter,  muskrat,  alligator,  &c.  All  such  ani- 
mals use  their  legs  and  feet  to  swim  with, 
and  to  walk  and  run  with  when  on  shore. 
The  legs  and  feet  of  all  these  creatures 
named  are  as  perfect  now  as  those  of  any 
exclusively  land  animals,  though  accus- 
tomed to  an  “aquatic  life”  since  perhaps 
their  first  formation.  Even  supposing  it 
possible  for  a hoofed  animal  to  assume  the 
custom  of  going  into  the  water  for  food, 
no  man  can  for  one  moment  suppose  it  to 
cease  using  its  legs.  They  would  rather  be 
used  with  greater  exertion  for  the  purpose 
of  swimming,  and  really  receive  a double 
share  of  exercisers  they  would  be  the  only 
means  of  locomotion  either  on  the  land  or 
in  the  water.  Hence,  the  wholly  founda- 
tionless assumption  that  because  a quad- 
ruped  becomes  accustomed  to  an  aquatic 
life  it  must  cease  using  its  legs,  ultimately 
lose  them,  and  be  changed  into  a fish ! 


I shall  regard,  therefore,  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis,  that  rudimentary  organs  are 
the  aborted  remains  of  the  same  organs  in 
a normal  and  useful  form  in  some  remote 
ancestors,  caused  by  evolution  or  develop- 
ment, as  wholly  exploded  by  the  arguments 
and  considerations  here  presented. 

This  brings  me  to  the  second  part  of  the 
discussion ; and  that  is,  to  frame  an  hy- 
pothesis which  will  explain  the  true  cause 
of  these  so-called  rudimentary  organs.  Is 
it  possible  to  give  a scientific  reason  for 
the  occurrence  of  teeth  in  the  front  upper 
jaws  of  embryos  of  the  bovine  and  whale 
tribes?  Can  there  be  any  rational  scien- 
tific reason  given  why  boa-constrictors  and 
whales  should  have  leg-bones  in  an  unde- 
veloped condition  beneath  the  skin  if  such 
bones  do  not  come  by  inheritance  from  re- 
mote ancestors  which  had  legs  thus  indi- 
cated, fully  developed  ? I answer,  emphati- 
cally, there  can  be  such  a reason  given,  and 
that  I will  now  proceed  to  develop  the  hy- 
pothesis by  which  it  will  be  clearly  estab- 
lished. But  as  much  preparatory  discus- 
sion, inquiry,  and  collection  of  facts,  may 
be  necessary  before  coming  to  the  direct 
proof  and  the  record  which  will  form  the 
culmination  of  the  hypothesis,  I will  have 
to  be  indulged  for  a few  pages  in  such  pre- 
paratory and  preliminary  work. 

Though  the  hypothesis  is  new,  its  corner- 
stone is  nevertheless  the  same  broad  and 
already  demonstrated  principle  so  often 
illustrated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  and 
on  which  my  provisional  hypothesis  was 
based  for  the  explanation  of  the  problems 
of  embryology  and  reversionary  action, 
namely,  the  physiological  and  psychical 
fact  that  within  each  living  creature,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  corporeal  structure  composed 
of  blood,  bone,  muscle,  &c.,  there  exists  its 
counterpart — an  incorporeal  vital  and  men- 
tal organism  constituting  the  real  and  es- 
sential being;  and  that  this  interior  vital 


460 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  invisible  organism,  though  wholly  in- 
tangible, is  as  truly  substantial  and  entitative 
as  are  the  grossest  atoms  of  which  the 
physical  frame  is  composed. 

I flatter  myself  that  the  reader  who  has 
carefully  read  the  arguments  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  by  which  such  an  incorpo- 
real vital  and  mental  organism  was  demon- 
strated, already  admits  the  truth  of  that 
position.  I will  here  repeat  that  it  is  only 
by  such  an  inter-related  and  co-ordinated 
organism,  existing  within  and  vitalizing  the 
corporeal  structure,  that  any  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  inheritance,  propagation,  varia- 
tion, development,  growth,  reproduction  of 
parts  and  healing  of  wounds, can  take  place 
in  a living  creature,  whether  such  creature 
be  high  or  low  in  the  scale  of  being. 

A single  phenomenon  may  here  be 
named  in  addition  to  those  to  which  I 
have  already  referred,  completely  corrob- 
orating this  hypothesis  of  a vital  and  men- 
tal organism  residing  within  each  physical 
structure  as  its  counterpart  and  visible  ex- 
pression, while  the  wonderful  fact  of  sen- 
sation will  be  thus  seen  to  depend  wholly 
on  this  essential  entity,  which  constitutes 
the  real  identity  ct'  every  living  creature. 

I refer  to  the  remarkable  fact  that  am- 
putated limbs  of  animals  have  been  fre- 
quently known  to  reproduce  themselves 
from  the  stump  by  a process  of  mysterious 
vital  action  hitherto  regarded  by  physiolo- 
gists as  wholly  inexplicable.  It  is  simply 
impossible,  on  the  physical  or  purely  mo- 
nistic view  of  organic  beings,  to  tell  why 
the  segments  of  a polyp  will  each  repro- 
duce a perfect  being,  or  why  the  leg  of  a 
salamander  when  cut  off  will  be  reproduced 
with  the  foot  and  toes  in  every  respect 
perfect.  Cases  are  recorded  in  which  a 
supernumerary  finger  has  been  amputated 
from  a child’s  hand,  which,  in  time,  would 
be  reproduced,  with  the  nail  and  joints 
complete.  Who  can  give  an  explanation 


of  these  astonishing  phenomena  based  on 
the  purely  physical  hypothesis  of  organic 
being?  Why  should  not  a toe  have  been 
developed  in  the  place  of  the  child’s  finger, 
or  another  tail  in  the  place  of  the  sala- 
mander’s amputated  leg?  No  physical 
view  of  organism  can  give  the  least  infor- 
mation on  this  problem,  while  I undertake 
to  say  that  the  view  here  maintained  of 
a vital  substantial  organism,  co-existing 
within  the  corporeal  as  its  exact  counter- 
part, is  a solution  at  once  conclusive,  and 
as  simple  as  it  is  satisfactory. 

According  to  this  hypothesis,  there  is  a 
vital,  intangible, but  substantial  salamander , 
in  perfect  form  and  outline, embraced  within 
the  physical  structure  of  that  reptile.  This 
invisible  organism,  so  far  as  its  vital  char- 
acteristics ate  concerned,  consists  of  the 
pure  substance  of  life  itself,  and  by  means 
of  its  correlation  in  all  its  parts  with  the 
corresponding  parts  of  the  corporeal  body, 
thus  constituting  an  exact  organic  homo- 
logue,  all  the  phenomena  of  growth,  sen- 
sation, reproduction  of  parts,  and  healing 
of  wounds,  must,  as  stated,  necessarily  re- 
sult. To  the  mental  eye,  the  reproduction 
of  the  salamander’s  corporeal  leg,  under 
the  control  and  direction  of  the  vital  leg, 
is  plainly  visible. 

Could  we  with  our  physical  eyes  see 
what  really  exists,  namely,  the  essential 
leg  of  that  animal  still  connected  with  its 
body,  perfect  in  all  its  parts — cuticle,  joints, 
muscles,  bones,  ligaments,  nerves,  veins, 
and  arteries, — after  the  physical  leg  is  am- 
putated and  destroyed, we  would  see  at  once 
how  the  corporeal  atoms  from  the  body  of 
the  salamander  through  its  circulation  are 
built  out  from  the  stump  into  a new  leg 
by  following  the  exact  but  substantial  out-, 
line  of  the  vital  structure;  and  how  they 
are  thus  deposited  one  by  one,  each  atom 
in  due  order,  within  the  exact  part  to  which 
it  belongs,  till  the.  whole  leg,  to  the  ends 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


461 


of  its  very  toes,  is  perfected, — just  as  a 
honey-bee  builds  up  its  wonderful  cell  by 
depositing  atom  by  atom  the  wax  in  its 
exact  place  to  form  the  ideal  geometrical 
outline. 

Without  such  a vital  and  substantial  leg 
really  remaining  connected  with  this  com- 
plete vital  organism,  there  would  be  no 
guide  or  outline  for  the  atoms  to  follow; 
and  it  is  utterly  inconceivable  as  to  how 
the  form  of  the  new  leg  is  preserved  by 
unconscious  laws  of  Nature,  except  by  the 
direct  intervention  of  a creative  mind. 
Physiologists  are  obliged,  therefore,  either 
to  accept  my  hypothesis  as  a scientific  ex- 
planation of  the  phenomena  attending  the 
reproduction  of  a limb  or  to  have  recourse 
to  miraculous  intervention,  since  there  is 
no  other  conceivable  solution. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  healing  of  an 
ordinary  wound.  However  deep  may  be 
a cut  in  the  flesh,  the  vital  or  intangible 
flesh,  so  to  speak,  remains  uncut,  and  the 
work  of  healing  is  but  the  deposition  of 
organic  molecules  within  this  vital  sub- 
stance till  the  wound  is  filled  up. 

There  is  not  the  least  difference  between 
the  reproduction  of  a part,  the  healing  of 
a wound,  and  the  development  of  the  em- 
bryonic being  from  the  ovule.  The  vital 
and  substantial  germ  of  the  embryo  must 
be  present  before  any  development  can 
commence.  Professor  Paget  corroborates 
this  when  he  says: — 

“ The  powers  of  development  from  the  embryo 
are  identical  with  those  exercised  for  the  restoration 
from  injuries.” — Lectures  on  Pathology.  1853, p.  152. 

Yet,  should  you  ask  this  great  scientist 
by  what  means  the  organic  atoms  are 
guided  to  each  particular  part,  even  to  the 
maintenance  of  their  ^xact  shades  of  color, 
in  the  restoration  of  a salamander’s  leg,  he 
would  be  utterly  lost,  and  unable  to  en- 
lighten you, — since,  in  common  with  the 
entire  profession,  he  has  no  conception  of 


this  dual  organic  structure  of  each  living 
creature,  so  absolutely  essential  to  the  so- 
lution of  the  problem. 

The  reproduction  of  a part  when  ampu- 
tated must  depend  upon  the  nature  and 
density  of  the  life-substance  constituting 
the  vital  organism  of  the  part.  But  few 
animals,  as  observation  proves,  are  able 
thus  to  reproduce  a lost  limb;  and  but  few 
children  would  possess  that  density  of  vital 
substance  in  the  hand  which  would  be  suf- 
ficiently compact  to  conduct  the  organic 
atoms  with  that  force  necessary  to  restore 
an  amputated  finger;  Yet  certain  worms 
have  such  an  intensified  life-essence — the 
nais,  for  example — that  they  can  be  cut 
into  many  pieces,  and  each  part  retain  suf- 
ficient life-substance  to  lead  to  the  repro- 
duction of  the  whole  being. 

This  is  explained  on  the  same  principle 
as  that  a given  mass  of  normal  atmosphere 
may  be  subdivided  into  a dozen  equal 
parts  and  passed  into  as  many  different 
vacuums,  each  the  size  of  the  original 
mass.  It  is  plain  that  each  vacuum  would 
be  filled  with  air, though  of  but  one  twelfth 
its  normal  density.  So  a nais,  if  subdivided 
into  a dozen  sections,  instead  of  its  dense 
vital  organism  being  cut  up  into  corre- 
sponding sections,  it  would  be  subdivided 
by  dilution  or  reduction  of  density,  each 
segment  retaining  the  complete  vital  form 
and  outline  of  the  worm,  though  in  a rare- 
fied condition.  Still, although  thus  diluted, 
the  vital  form  of  this  creature  connected 
with  each  section  of  its  physical  structure 
is  sufficiently  dense  to  form  the  conduct- 
ing medium  of  the  corporeal  atoms  which 
are  thus  guided  along  the  line  of  the  or- 
ganism, each  one  taking  its  place  till  the 
corporeal  being  is  perfectly  reproduced. 
No  physiologist,  anatomist,  or  naturalist, 
I again  insist,  can  propose  even  the  shadow 
of  an  explanation  of  this  overwhelming 
problem  based  on  the  monistic  view  of 


462 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


organic  forms  of  being, — holding,  as  they 
all  do,  that  there  is  nothing  substantial 
but  the  tangible  in  a living  creature. 

It  is  well  known  that  no  two  persons 
are  exactly  alike  as  to  the  facility  with 
which  a wound  will  heal.  With  some  a 
scarless  cicatrice  will  form  almost  imme- 
diately, while  with  others  a cut  with  diffi- 
culty heals  at  all.  This  is  generally  at- 
tributed to  the  purity  or  impurity  of  the 
blood.  Though  this  may  be  a partial 
cause  of  the  difference,  it  is  but  a scintilla 
of  the  true  reason.  When  physiologists 
and  pathologists  shall  come  to  fully  com- 
prehend the  grand  idea  involved  in  the 
duality  of  man’s  organic  nature, the  science 
of  medicine  will  have  made  a long  stride 
in  advance  of  the  present  standard  of  sci- 
entific knowledge. 

I add  but  one  other  corroborative  class 
of  phenomena  to  confirm  the  truth  of  my 
hypothesis,  on  which  so  much  depends, 
that  every  living  creature  possesses  a dual 
organism — a substantial  vital  and  physical 
structure.  This  class  of  phenomena  con- 
sists in  the  well  known  fact  that  when  a 
human  arm  or  leg  is  amputated  the  sufferer 
distinctly  and  for  a long  time  afterward 
feels  pains  and  itching  sensations  in  the 
fingers  or  toes  of  the  lost  limb.  I had  an 
abundant,  though  unpleasant,  opportunity 
to  witness  a demonstration  of  this  fact  in 
the  case  of  my  own  brother,  who  lost  his 
leg  by  accident.  For  months  after  the 
amputation  he  would  complain  of  the  ter- 
rible itching  sensation  in  his  toes,  and 
would  even  at  times  involuntarily  attempt 
to  place  his  hand  on  the  lost  foot.  Little 
did  I think  then  (over  forty  years  ago)  that 
his  actual  foot  was  there  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  as  much  as  before  the  corporeal 
flesh  had  disappeared ! 

This  experience  is  not  confined  to  hu- 
man sufferers.  A dog  which  had  lost  its 
leg  has  been  frequently  seen  to  attempt  to 


lick  its  absent  foot,  showing  that  the  true 
source  of  all  sensation  is  the  vital  and 
mental  organism,  and  that  upon  this  foun- 
dation alone  are  based  all  the  issues  of 
life  and  all  biological  phenomena.  The 
destruction  of  the  flesh  does  not  therefore 
necessarily  put  an  end  to  the  actual  iden- 
tity of  the  being,  the  difference  between 
the  human  and  the  lower  forms  of  life 
alone  remaining  to  complete  the  solution 
of  this  beautiful  and  interesting  problem, 
which  I will  attempt  to  give  prior  to  the 
close  of  this  chapter. 

I now  return  to  consider  the  evidence 
which  will  lead  directly  to  the  explanation 
of  rudimentary  organs,  though  these  di- 
gressions are  absolutely  needful  to  unfold 
the  many  complicated  questions  involved. 

The  variations  which  continually  occur 
in  the  young  of  all  species  of  animals, 
from  the  human  race  down,  are  only  ex- 
plicable by  the  actual  presence  of  this  in- 
corporeal organism  as  the  regnant  element 
in  every  living  creature.  There  are  no 
two  human  beings,  and  there  never  were 
two,  exactly  alike  at  birth.  The  same  is 
true  of  all  lower  animals.  The  shepherd 
knows  each  one  of  his  thousand  sheep  by 
its  countenance,  while  to  a stranger  they 
all  look  alike,  owing  solely  to  a want  of 
familiarity  with  their  appearance. 

Variation  in  all  organic  beings  has  a law 
which  superinduces  it  as  fixed  as  that  gov- 
erning the  movements  of  a planet  in  its 
orbit;  yet  to  those  who  only  look  upon 
living  creatures  as  merely  corporeal  beings, 
with  the  vital  and  mental  powers  as  the 
insubstantial  results  of  certain  molecular 
motions,  and  thus  ignore  the  dual  substan- 
tial nature  of  each  organism,  the  phenom- 
ena of  variations,  monstrosities,  inherited 
transmissions,  See.,  are  a perplexing  riddle 
which  casts  an  impenetrable  shadow  of  the 
deepest  gloom  over  the  smallest  biological 
fact.  Such  corporeal  philosophers  have 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


463 


never  broken  through  the  egg-shell  of 
Nature.  The  movement  of  a worm  con- 
founds them.  The  growth  of  a hair  or  the 
projection  of  one  of  the  pseudopodia  on 
the  surface  of  a moneron  utterly  annihi- 
lates their  corporeal  philosophy.  As  an 
illustration  of  the  bewilderment  which  re- 
sults from  ignoring  this  intrinsic  and  essen- 
tial part  of  every  organic  being,  look  at 
this  confused  and  heterogeneous  mass  of 
contradictory  ideas  in  regard  to  the  prob- 
able causes  of  variations  among  the  off- 
spring of  different  animals  entertained  by 
as  great  and  careful  a student  of  Nature 
as  Mr.  Darwin : — 

“Our  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  variation  is  pro- 
found. Not  in  one  case  out  of  a hundred  can  we 
pretend  to  assign  any  reason  why  this  or  that  form 
has  varied.” 

“With  respect  to  the  exciting  causes  we  can  only 
say  as  when  speaking  of  so-called  spontaneous  va- 
riations, that  they  relate  much  more  closely  to  the 
constitution  of  the  varying  organism  than  to  the 
nature  of  the  conditions  to  which  it  has  been  sub- 
jected." 

“All  such  changes  of  structure,  whether  ex- 
tremely slight  or  strongly  marked,  which  appear 
among  many  individuals  living  together,  may  be 
considered  as  the  indefinite  effects  of  the  conditions 
of  life  on  each  individual  organism.” 

“On  the  whole  Knight’s  view,  that  excess  of  food 
is  one  of  the  most  potent  causes  of  variability , ap- 
pears, as  far  as  I can  judge,  probable.” 

“We  know  not  what  produces  the  numberless 
slight  differences  between  the  individuals  of  each 
species,  for  reversion  only  carries  the  problem  a 
few  steps  backward ; but  each  peculiarity  must 
have  had  its  efficient  cause.” 

“These  facts  are  important,  from  showing,  as 
remarked  in  a former  chapter,  that  each  trifling 
variation  is  governed  by  law,  and  is  determined  in 
a much  higher  degree  by  the  nature  of  the  organiza- 
tion than  by  the  nature  of  the  conditions  to  which 
the  varying  being  has  been  exposed.” 

“Domesticated  animals  vary  more  than  those  in 
a state  of  nature,  and  this  is  apparently  due  to  the 
diversified  and  changing  nature  of  the  conditions 
to  which  they  have  been  subjected.” 

“Of  all  the  causes  which  induce  variability  excess 
of  food,  whether  or  not  changed  in  nature,  is  prob- 
ably the  most  powerful." 


“We  are  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  cause  of 
each  sudden  and  apparently  spontaneous  variation. 

. . . What  first  caused  these  slight  differences  can 
not  be  explained  any  more  than  why  one  man  has  a 
long  nose  and  another  a short  one.” 

“Variability  often  depends,  as  I have  attempted 
to  show,  on  the  reproductive  organs  being  inju-  ^ 
riously  affected  by  changed  conditions.” — Darwin, 
Origin  of  Species,  pp.  6,  131. — Descent  of  Alan,  pp. 
28,61,62. — Animals  and  Plants,  vol.i.,pp.  250,265; 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  310,  311,  421,  471. 

There  can  be  no  better  exhibit  than 
this  of  the  real  state  of  confusion  existing 
in  the  minds  of  all  naturalists  and  physiol- 
ogists who  take  into  view  only  the  physical 
structure  of  a living  creature  when  trying 
to  account  for  this  universally  admitted 
fact  that  no  two  living  creatures  are  in  all 
respects  alike  at  birth.  The  truth  is,  and 
future  physiology  will  be  compelled  to 
recognize  it,  that  the  true  and  only  causes 
of  these  so-called  spontaneous  variations 
in  the  offspring  of  all  species,  are  the  con- 
stantly varying  mental  and  vital  perturba- 
tions’ of  the  mother  as  the  results  of  the 
diversified  shocks  and  impressions  of  one 
kind  and  another  made  upon  her  mind, 
and  ultimately  their  re-action  from  the 
incorporeal  structure  of  the  mother  upon 
the  corporeal  organism  of  the  embryonic 
being. 

The  world  is  full  of  facts  confirming  and 
illustrating  this  great  truth,  though  they 
have  never  been  comprehended  even  by 
the  physiological  profession,  simply  be- 
cause these  great  minds  apparently  were 
unable  to  grasp  the  dual  nature  of  a living 
creature  or  to  understand  that  the  vital 
and  mental  organism  was  as  truly  and 
really  substantial  as  was  the  blood,  bone,' 
or  muscle. 

Had  Mr.  Darwin  recognized  this  law  of 
mental  perturbations  as  the  true  and  sole 
cause  of  spontaneous  variations  in  the 
young  of  animal  species,  he  would  not 
have  been  led  into  the  manifest  self-con- 


464 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


tradictions  on  the  subject,  of  which  his 
writings  are  full,  and  of  which  I have 
quoted  but  a sample. 

Among  these  mysterious  phenomena  of 
spontaneous  variations  he  names  the  well 
known  fact  that  domestic  species  are  much 
more  liable  to  variations  and  monstrosities 
than  wild  species.  How  beautifully  this 
is  explained  by  mental  perturbations  of 
the  mother  acting  on  the  vital,  mental, 
and  corporeal  organism  of  the  embryonic 
being!  Domestic  species  being  under  the 
control  of  man,  and  being  forced  con- 
stantly to  obey  his  behests,  receive  innu- 
merable shocks  of  body  and  mind  which 
wild  animals  are  wholly  free  from.  As 
every  coercion  of  an  animal  against  its 
will  causes  a mental  perturbation,  it  is 
plain  to  see  why  domesticated  animals  are 
more  liable  to  divergencies  of  structure 
than  wild  ones. 

I shall  here  treat  first  briefly  of  human 
offspring,  and  the  manifest  causes  which 
lead  to  their  universal  variation  from  each 
other,  and  adduce  complete  reasons  for 
the  truth  of  the  position  here  assumed, 
that  monstrosities  and  all  minor  congen- 
ital variations,  even  to  the  diversity  of  fea- 
tures, must  be  traced  to  the  mental  impres- 
sion received  by  the  mother  from  some 
shock  of  more  or  less  intensity  during 
some  impressible  period  of  gestation. 

There  is,  perhaps,  not  a single  reader  of 
this  book  who  is  not  cognizant  of  some 
circumstance  which  will  corroborate  this 
assertion.  I have  now  in  my  mind  six 
distinct  cases  which  have  come  under  my 
own  personal  observation,  where  the  infant 
was  deformed  either  in  mind  or  body  by  a 
shock  causing  a mental  impression  on  the 
mother,  which  she  distinctly  remembered, 
not  only  after  the  birth  of  the  child,  but 
thought  of  at  the  time  of  the  perturbation, 
even  with  alarm  at  its  possible  conse- 
quences,— while  no  doubt  such  alarm, 


adding  to  the  mental  impression,  helped 
to  bring  about  the  result. 

Can  physiologists  begin  to  give  a reason, 
based  on  the  idea  that  corporeal  organism 
is  the  only  substantial  element  involved  in 
a mother’s  being,  why  the  mere  sight  at  a 
distance  of  a monstrous  or  deformed  ob- 
ject, can,  through  the  incorporeal  sense  of 
vision,  without  physical  contact,  convey 
such  monstrous  form  and  mark  its  physical 
impress  on  the  embryo?  There  surely  can 
be  only  her  mental  impression  to  do  it; 
and  if  the  incorporeal  sense  of  vision  tak- 
ing hold  of  the  monstrous  object  and  the 
mind  of  the  mother  be  not  substantial  en- 
tities, however  much  attenuated,  then  the 
impress  of  that  deformity  was  conveyed 
through  absolutely  nothing  to  the  embry- 
onic structure,  which  is  a clear  absurdity. 

I laydown  the  position, without  the  fear 
of  it  ever  being  successfully  met,  that  no 
substantial  effect  can  be  produced  on  any 
object  without  an  absolute  substance  of 
some  kind  connecting  the  cause  with  the 
effect.  This  belief  is  what  led  me  to  as- 
sume, in  an  early  chapter  of  this  book, 
that  gravitation  must  of  necessity  be  a 
substance  instead  of  a so-called  almost 
meaningless  force , since  it  acts  upon 
physical  objects  at  a distance  and  causes 
physical  effects.  I argued  the  same  of 
magnetic  currents,  which  pass  through  im- 
porous  bodies  and  seize  and  manipulate 
bars  of  iron.  I was  thus  led  to  embrace 
all  the  forces  and  so-called  modes  of  mo- 
tion, such  as  sound,  electricity,  heat,  and 
light,  within  the  scope  of  this  broad  prin- 
ciple that  whatever  is,  exists,  or  can  be 
thought  of,  or  which  forms  the  basis  of 
a concept,  is  substantial, — which  cariied 
me  unavoidably  to  this  most  important,  as 
I conceive  it,  principle  of  philosophy,  that 
life  and  mind  are  substantial  entities  as 
really  and  truly  as  are  the  most  ponderable 
physical  objects,  while  every  step  I take  in 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments . 


465 


this  physiological  and  psychical  inquiry 
but  confirms  my  earliest  impressions  on 
the  subject. 

The  reader  may  ask  if  I regard  motion 
as  substance.  I answer,  No.  It  is  the  name 
by  which  we  designate  the  act  of  a sub- 
stance changing  places.  If  mind  is  the 
result  of  the  motions  of  molecules  in  the 
brain,  as  scientists  teach,  then  what  does 
this  “result”  of  such  molecular  movement 
consist  in?  If  the  motion  itself  among  the 
molecules  of  the  brain  is  tlje  all  of  mind, 
then  the  mind  is  really  and  absolutely 
nothing  of  which  thought  can  conceive, 
since  motion  is  nothing  before  an  object 
begins  to  move,  while  it  is  the  same  nothing 
after  the  object  has  moved  and  stands  at 
rest*  and  hence,  as  it  is  impossible  for 
anything  to  be  produced  from  nothing,  all 
motions  are  therefore  strictly  nonentities, 
and  consequently  mind  is  literally  nothing. 
The  old  Undulatory  Theory  teaches,  for 
example,  that  sound  is  conveyed  by  means 
of  air-waves.  But  what  is  that  thing  called 
sound  which  is  “conveyed”?  Sound  must 
be  a something  or  it  could  not  be  conveyed 
by  air-waves  or  by  anything  else.  Sound 
can  not  be  the  motion  of  the  air,  for  then 
every  rapid  movement  of  the  air  would  be 
heard.  In  like  manner  mind  is  not  the 
motion  of  molecules  of  the  brain  nor  any 
other  motion  of  any  other  corporeal  atoms, 
but  the  substantial  atoms  themselves  of  an 
incorporeal  mental  organism,  as  absolute 
in  its  existence  or  entity  as  is  that  of  the 
physical  brain,  which  is  but  the  visible  ex- 
pression of  its  invisible  throne. 

A single  case  will  beautifully  illustrate 
the  view  of  leading  physiologists  on  these 
questions  of  abnormal  variations  in  chil- 
dren, and  the  utter  confusion  resulting  from 
a want  of  recognition  of'  this  inner  organ- 
ism, which  I maintain  constitutes  the  essen- 
tial nature  of  every  living  creature.  Mr. 
Carpenter,  perhaps  one  of  the  greatest  of 


physiological  writers,  makes  the  following 
statement : — 

“Numerous  cases  were  recorded  a few  years 
since,  in  which  malformations  in  the  infant  ap- 
peared distinctly  traceable  to  strong  impressions 
made  on  the  mind  of  the  mother  some  months  pre- 
viously to  parturition." — Human  Physiology , p.991. 

While  this  author  records  the  facts,  he 
nevertheless  expresses  himself  as  entirely 
unable  to  comprehend  how  it  is  possible 
for  such  an  impression  to  reach  and  deform 
the  embryo,  since,  there  is  no  system  of  nerves 
connecting  the  mother  and  the  child,  but 
supposes  it  must  be  possible  for  it  to  be 
accomplished  through  the  circulation  of 
the  blood,  though  of  even  this  he  is  in 
doubt! 

Here,  then,  after  recording  these  cases  of 
monstrosity  as  having  taken  place  through 
the  mental  impression  of  the  mother,  this 
great  author  at  once  ignores  the  mind  itself 
as  the  connecting  cause — takes  not  the 
slightest  notice  of  the  living,  thinking  part 
of  the  mother,  as  a substantial  entity,  and 
the  vastly  more  important  portion  of  her 
dual  organism,  which  might  link  the  mother 
and  child,  but  goes  at  once  in  search  of 
some  physical  system  of  umbilic  nerves 
connecting  them;  and  because  he  cannot 
find  such  a system,  he  is  thrown  into  be- 
wildering confusion,  for  which  the  circula- 
tion of  the  blood  of  the  mother  affords  but 
a poor  relief,  since  how  did  this  mental 
impression  fasten  itself  upon  the  blood? 
Now,  all  this  goes  to  show  us  the  inexplic- 
able mystery  in  which  physiological  phe- 
nomena are  involved,  in  the  minds  of  the 
greatest  authors,  by  a non-recognition  of 
the  sublime  fundamental  truth  I have  been 
trying  to  impress  upon  the  reader.  It  de- 
monstrates the  fact  that  the  mind  itself  and 
the  vital  incorporeal  essence  of  the  mother, 
which  pervade  her  entire  structure  as  a 
super-material  substance,  the  same  as  in- 
corporeal electricity  might  be  supposed  to 


466 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


pervade  her,  are  the  true  and  only  means 
by  which  the  impression  of  the  monstrous, 
frightful  object,  though  even  seen  at  a dis- 
tance, was  conveyed  to  the  plastic  form  of 
the  embryonic  being.  I verily  believe  that 
until  this  great  underlying  truth  shall  be 
duly  comprehended  and  recognized,  physi- 
ologists, with  all  their  laborious  and  histo- 
logic researches,  even  with  the  most  power- 
ful microscopes  to  aid  them,  will  never 
penetrate  even  the  cuticle  of  science  as 
regards  the  true  causes  of  physiological 
phenomena. 

By  this  hitherto  unrecognized  principle 
— and,  as  I believe,  by  it  alone — that  each 
living  creature  is  formed  of  a dual  sub- 
stance and  organism,  half  corporeal  and 
half  incorporeal, — will  all  the  biological 
and  physiological  mysteries  involved  in 
the  animal  economy  be  ultimately  solved. 
In  the  light  of  this  elementary  truth  we 
can  see  at  once  why  no  two  children  ap- 
pear or  can  appear  alike,  because  it  is 
utterly  impossible  for  any  mother  to  pass 
during  gestation  through  the  same  number, 
kind,  and  intensity  of  mental  shocks  and 
vital  perturbations.  The  law  of  chances 
mathematically  forbids  it.  Applying  this 
principle  to  the  lower  animals  (and  I will 
prove  positively  after  a little  that  they  are 
controlled  by  the  same  law),  it  becomes 
at  once  plain  why  no  two  sheep, out  of  the 
almost  countless  millions  now  on  earth  are 
alike,  and  why  in  a thousand  million 
births  no  two  lambs  could  look  alike,  even 
if  the  ewes  were  fed  on  exactly  the  same 
kind  of  food  and  subjected  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  the  same  environments,  since 
the  same  vital  and  mental  impressions 
could  not  be  experienced  by  any  two 
mothers  in  all  respects  alike;  though  the 
nearer  the  mental  and  vital  shocks  or  per- 
turbations could  come  to  nil  the  nearer 
any  particular  lamb  would  be  an  exact 
cross,  partaking  equally  the  resemblance 


of  father  and  mother,  while  lambs  so  pro- 
duced from  the  same  parents  from  year  to 
year,  with  the  least  possible  mental  and 
vital  perturbations, would  no  doubt  in  time 
come  the  nearest  to  perfect  resemblance 
of  each  other  possible  to  attain  in  Nature. 

How  clearly  this  is  illustrated  by  the 
well  known  fact  that  human  twins  look 
so  much  more  alike  than  children  of  sep- 
arate births,  even  by  the  same  parents. 
They  have,  as  a matter  of  course,  during 
gestation,  received  alike  the  good  as  well 
as  the  ill  effects  of  the  same  mental  per- 
turbations and  vital  shocks  of  the  mother, 
and  precisely  at  the  same  times,  which 
have  tended  in  some  cases  to  produce  such 
perfect  resemblance  between  them  as  al- 
most to  make  them  indistinguishable.  It 
is  perhaps  safe  to  venture  the  belief,  that, 
but  for  the  differently  transmitted  impres- 
sions from  the  father  upon  the  two  life- 
germs,  which,  as  I have  before  assumed, 
must  control  the  developing  embryo,  twins 
would  be  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  so 
much  alike  as  to  be  indistinguishable. 

How  beautifully  this  well  known  resem- 
blance in  twins,  which  receive  necessarily 
the  same  impressions  at  the  same  time 
through  the  mental  and  vital  perturbations 
of  the  mother,  would  have  helped  Mr. 
Darwin,  had  he  but  thought  of  it  in  his 
great  confusion  on  the  question  as  to  what 
causes  variations  in  children  or  in  the 
young  of  the  lower  animals.  He  would 
then  not  have  been  apt  to  teach,  as  he  now 
does  (see  page  463),  first,  that  it  is  owing 
to  the  “nature  of  the  conditions  to  which 
they  have  been  subjected,”  and  then  owing 
“much  more  closely  to  the  constitution  of 
the  varying  organism  than  to  the  nature  of 
the  conditions  to  which  it  has  been  sub- 
jected”; first,  that  “ excess  of  food  is  one  of 
the  most  potent  causes  of  variability,"  and 
then  that  “we  know  not  what  produces  the 
numberless  slight  differences  between  the 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


467 


individuals  of  each  species”;  first,  that 
“each  trifling  variation  is  governed  by  law, 
and  is  determined  in  a much  higher  degree 
by  the  nature  of  the  orga?iization  than  by 
the  nature  of  the  conditions,”  and  then  that 
“all  such  changes  of  structure  . . . may  be 
considered  as  the  indefinite  effects  of  the 
conditions  of  life  on  each  individual  organ- 
ism”; and  finally,  that  “we  are  profoundly 
ignorant  of  the  cause  of  each  sudden  and 
apparently  spontaneous  variation”!  Surely 
the  attentive  reader  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  works 
did  not  require  this  last  sentence.  The 
entire  system  of  modern  evolution  by 
natural  selection  is  based  by  this  great 
author  on  this  very  matter  of  the  sponta- 
neous variations  among  species.  If,  then, 
he  is  “profoundly  ignorant,”  as  he  con- 
fessess  himself,  on  the  very  foundation  of 
his  system,  which  no  one  can  doubt  from 
the  foregoing  quotations,  how  can  he  be 
so  well  informed  about  the  system  itself  as 
to  assume  to  overthrow  all  previous  science 
on  the  subject?  If  a mechanic  confesses 
himself  “profoundly  ignorant”  about  the 
foundation  of  a building,  we  would  hardly 
be  apt  to  employ  him  to  build  us  a house. 
Could  Mr.  Darwin  have  laid  aside  his 
purely  physical  ideas,  of  animal  organism 
and  inherited  transmissions,  and  have 
grasped  this  beautiful  thought  that  mind 
and  life  are  substantial  entities,  there 
would  have  been  no  such  -irreconcilable 
contradictions  in  his  teaching  as  to  the 
cause  of  variations,  but  rather  he  might 
then  have  boldly  enunciated  a consistent, 
clearly  defined  law  and  principle,  as  the 
basis  on  which  natural  selection  could 
build  its  superstructure  of  evolution, — un- 
less, as  no  doubt  would  have  been  the  case, 
a true  conception  of  the  foundation  on 
which  he  has  built  would  have  prevented 
him  building  altogether. 

That  the  mental  impression  of  the 
mother  does  actually  fasten  upon  the  child 


through  her  incorporeal  vital  organism, 
whether  such  impression  be  in  the  form 
of  a sudden  shock  or  of  a lasting  memory, 
is  proved  by  the  well  authenticated  fact 
that  many  times  children  by  a second  hus- 
band resemble  the  first  much  more  nearly 
than  they  do  their  real  father,  alone  through 
the  vivid  memory  of  the  mother  and  her 
appreciation  of  the  long  dead  but  cherished 
first  love.  Mr.  Darwin  admits  this,  but 
actually  insists,  from  his  purely  corporeal 
ideas  of  organic  beings,  that  this  fact  re- 
sults from  the  physical  impression  left 
upon  the  mother’s  organization  by  the 
first  husband,  which  will  be  utterly  ex- 
ploded when  I come  to  apply  these  facts 
directly  to  the  hypothesis  for  which  I am 
now  preparing,  though  the  fact  is  equally 
well  authenticated  that  many  a mother, 
through  the  cherished  memory  of  an  early 
love,  and  who  died  before  marriage,  has 
given  to  her  future  children  the  likeness  of 
the  lost  one, with  whom  she  had  sustained 
only  mental  relationship. 

No  one  who  has  given  attention  to  this 
subject  doubts  but  that  children  are  fre- 
quently marked  and  even  deformed  by  the 
longing  desire  of  the  mother  for  some  par- 
ticular object  which  deeply  impressed  her 
thoughts.  I could  give  a list  of  more  than 
a score  of  such  marks,  which  have  fallen 
under  my  own  observation,  where  well 
defined  pictures  of  fruits,  fishes,  and  other 
objects,  have  been  imprinted  upon  various 
parts  of  the  bodies  of  children,  recognized 
by  the  mothers, and  the  very  times  and  cir- 
cumstances recollected  which  produced 
them.  I shall  not,  however,  waste  the 
reader’s  time  in  relating  instances  of  this 
character,  supposing  that  facts  so  numer- 
ous and  well  known  are  familiar  to  almost 
every  one. 

Before  making  the  application  of  these 
physiological  facts  to  the  direct  problem 
in  hand,  and  before  showing,  as  I propose 


468 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


soon  to  do,  that  every  circumstance  related 
as  occurring  among  human  mothers  and 
offspring  are  equally  liable  to  take  place 
with  lower  animals,  I wish  to  briefly  carry 
out  an  idea  suggested  in  the  preceding 
chapter  (page  226,  last  paragraph),  which 
I promised  to  elaborate  before  the  close  of 
the  volume;  and  that  is,  to  point  out  the 
true  philosophical  difference  between  the 
human  vital  and  mental  organism  and  that 
of  lower  animals,  as  relates  to  their  prob- 
able chances  for  immortality  or  life  beyond 
the  present  tangible  existence.  Although 
the  solution  I shall  here  give  is  entirely 
new,  so  far  as  I have  ever  seen  published, 
yet  it  is  so  completely  in  harmony  with  the 
tenor  of  this  work  as  relates  to  the  true  law 
of  inheritance  and  transmission,  that  the 
book  would  be  incomplete  without  the  ex- 
planation I will  now  attempt. 

There  is  no  person  who  has  arrived  at 
an  age  of  reflection  or  who  has  ever  phil- 
osophized on  the  vast  problem  of  a future 
life,  or  who  has  pondered  on  that  unspeak- 
able something  called  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  who  has  not  been  confronted  with 
the  puzzling  inquiry — “If  I am  to  live  after 
my  body  dies,  why  shall  not  my  faithful, 
intelligent,  and  confiding  dog,  live  also?” 
“ If  the  mental  powers  and  vital  essence 
of  such  an  animal,  with  its  memory  and 
loving  devotion,  can  be  annihilated  or  can 
sink  into  nonentity  at  death,  what  philo- 
sophical proof  or  probable  evidence  can 
be  adduced  to  show  that  man  shall  live 
after  the  death  of  the  body,  and  retain  his 
personal  and  conscious  identity?” 

I am  aware  that  thousands  of  different 
books  and  tens  of  thousands  of  sermons 
have  touched  upon  this  problem,  and  have 
essayed  to  give  some  sort  of  an  answer  to 
these  inquiries,  though  not  one  of  which, 
as  I believe,  has  been  entirely  satisfactory 
to  its  author.  Probably  without  an  excep- 
tion such  solutions  have  been  given  from 


a theological  standpoint,  employing  for  the 
basis  of  explication  the  dicta  of  divine 
revelation.  However  clearly  such  data 
may  establish  the  line  of  demarkation  be- 
tween men  and  the  “brutes  that  perish,” 
or  however  distinctly  they  may  suggest 
such  a bridgeless  hiatus  between  “the  spirit 
of  a man  that  goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit 
of  a beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the 
earth,”  the  mind  of  every  writer  reverts  in- 
tuitively to  the  field  of  philosophical  and 
scientific  research,  and  anxiously  asks  for 
some  confirmatory  fact  or  phenomenon 
which  may  rationally  be  construed  in  the 
same  direction.  Are  there  any  such  rea- 
sonable circumstances  to  be  drawn  from 
the  great  storehouse  of  Nature,  which,  by 
fair  application  or  explication,  may  shed 
light  on  this  cryptic  problem?  I undertake 
to  give  a solution  based  solely  on  reason 
and  established  facts  of  science,  leaving  the 
theological  view  exactly  where  it  stands, 
to  be  used  if  need  be  to  re-enforce  the  ex- 
planation I am  about  to  give,  or  perhaps 
rather  to  be  re-enforced  by  it. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  I undertook 
to  solve  the  problem  (with  what  success 
the  reader  knows)  as  to  the  exact  scientific 
difference  between  animal  instinct  and 
human  knowledge.  I showed  that  both 
were  equally  knowledge  or  intelligence, 
and  that  both  equally  depended  upon 
and  grew  out  of  a mental  organism  re- 
ceived by  offspring  at  birth  as  an  incor- 
poreal yet  substantial  legacy  transmitted 
from  the  parents;  and  that  while  the  par- 
ents among  the  lower  animals  had  received 
from  the  Creative  Will  originally  the  power 
of  transferring  not  only  their  mental  and 
vital  organism,  but  with  it  their  own  prac- 
tical knowledge,  human  parents  could  not 
transmit  a scintilla  of  their  own  knowledge, 
but  in  lieu  of  it  were  given  the  capability 
of  transferring  an  unlimited  blank  capacity 
for  being  taught,  and  then  in  turn  teaching 


Ciiap.  IX. 


469 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


their  own  offspring,  neither  of  which  the 
brute  possesses. 

These  distinctions,  fundamentally  exist- 
ing between  the  human  and  lower  species, 
I insist,  are  not  mere  hypothetical  guesses, 
but  are  based  necessarily  on  the  principles 
of  science  as  viewed  by  enlightened  reason, 
since  I have  abundantly  shown  from  the 
most  demonstrative  scientific  evidence 
that  there  must  be  within  each  corporeal 
organism  a substantial  entity  of  being 
composed  of  the  life  and  mental  powers, 
and  corresponding  in  every  outline  with 
the  physical  or  anatomical  structure,  or 
otherwise  no  such  thing  as  inheritance  or 
the  transmission  of  peculiarities,  charac- 
ters, or  diseases,  could  ever  occur  between 
parents  and  offspring.  Neither  could  such 
a thing  as  the  healing  of  a wound  or  the 
reproduction  of  an  amputated  part  occur, 
as  recently  illustrated,  without  the  presence 
of  such  intangible  but  substantial  organism 
within  every  living  creature.  I challenge 
the  scientific  world,  and  especially  the 
physiological  profession,  to  overthrow  that 
position,  as  based  on  the  various  considera- 
tions brought  to  bear  in  the  preceding 
chapter  (pages  408,  409). 

It  must  not  be  charged  here,  because  I 
have  based  the  assumed  original  stock  of 
knowledge  of  the  primal  parents  of  all  ani- 
mal species  on  the  endowment  of  the  Crea- 
tive Will,  that  I start  out  with  a theological 
assumption.  It  is  not  theological,  but 
purely  philosophical  and  scientific.  I have 
shown  in  this  chapter  that  the  miraculous 
creation  of  a primeval  species,  if  the  weight 
of  evidence  sustains  it,  is  as  much  a scien- 
tific fact  as  the  development  of  a tree  from 
an  acorn.  It  hence  must  follow  that  the 
absolute  and  intelligent  existence  of  such 
a Creative  Will  as  could  form  a primal 
species  becomes  necessarily  a scientific 
truth,  since  the  reasons  are  numerous  and 
cogent  going  to  show  that  by  no  possibility 


in  philosophy  or  science  could  the  first 
specific  organisms  come  into  being  without 
such  miraculous  creation,  even  if  evolution 
should  be  admitted  as  a sufficient  cause  for 
all  subsequent  species.  If,  however,  the 
first  specific  forms  are  thus  shown  to  be 
necessarily  and  demonstrably  the  work  of 
an  intelligent  Creative  Will,  and  then  if 
evolutionists  should  fail  to  give  satisfactory 
evidence  that  God  changed  His  plan  for 
the  origination  of  subsequent  species  (as 
they  seem  in  a fair  way  of  doing),  it  be- 
comes a demonstrated  scientific  fact  that 
the  primal  parents  of  every  organic  species 
were  equally  the  product  of  the  same  in- 
telligent Creative  Will.  It  therefore  follows, 
assuming  the  evolution  theory  to  have  sig- 
nally failed,  of  which  the  reader  no  doubt 
has  by  this  time  become  convinced,  that  I 
justly  and  logically  base  the  creation  of 
the  primal  parents  of  all  the  different  spe- 
cies, and  their  endowment  with  the  original 
stock  of  knowledge  needful  to  their  varied 
struggles  for  existence,  on  the  great  funda- 
mental scientific  truth  that  such  a Creative 
Will  really  and  absolutely  exists. 

All  this  being  scientifically  and  logically 
premised  and  deduced,  I am  now  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  problem.  The  first 
question  necessarily  arising  in  attempting 
a solution  is  this:  If  each  living  creature 
at  birth  has  a vital  and  mental  organism 
pervading  its  physical  structure,  and  as 
really  substantial  as  the  corporeal  anatomy, 
of  what  is  such  interior  organism  composed 
and  whence  was  it  originally  derived?  It 
is  a universal  axiom  of  science  that  “from 
nothing,  nothing  comes.”  As  this  incor- 
poreal organism  has  been  demonstrated  to 
be  an  entity — a real  counterpart  of  the 
physical  structure,  since  it  is  only  through 
it  that  inheritance  can  take  place  and 
transmissions  can  occur, — it  must,  there- 
fore, be  a part  of  some  actual  substance 
which  had  a previous  existence;  and  as 


470 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


the  existence  of  a God  has  been  scientific- 
ally demonstrated,  who  was  capable  of  pro- 
ducing living  organisms  out  of  inorganic 
matter,  such  a God  therefore  must  be  a 
substantial  and  intelligent  entity.  Just  as 
certain  as  that  our  material  organism  ne- 
cessarily had  to  come  from  a source  or 
fountain  of  pre-existing  matter,  just  so  sure 
must  this  mental  and  vital  organism  per- 
vading every  living  creature  have  come  from 
a source  or  fountain  of  pre-existing  mind 
and  life. 

Thus  the  way  is  logically  made  clear  for 
the  assumption  that  the  vital  and  mental 
organism  of  each  living  creature  consists 
of  a mere  drop  from  out  the  fountain  of 
God’s  own  infinite  vital  and  mental  sub- 
stance. To  the  primal  and  miraculously 
created  parents  of  each  species  the  Crea- 
tive Will  must  then  have  transferred  an  in- 
finitesimal drop  of  His  own  being,  consti- 
tuting not  only  the  real  entities  of  these 
primal  parents,  but  the  perpetual  specific 
germ  for  transmitting  the  same  entity  to 
offspring,  and  the  only  part  of  an  organic 
being  not  liable  to  displacement  and  sub- 
stitution, as  so  clearly  shown  in  the  preced- 
ing chapter,  while  the  primordial  stock  of 
knowledge  given  to  the  parents  of  each 
species,  necessary  to  their  primitive  condi- 
tions of  life,  was  also  but  a drop  out  of  His 
own  infinite  intelligence. 

And  here,  accidentally,  we  again  come 
back  to  the  starting  point — the  real,  in- 
trinsic, and  essential  difference  between  the 
vital  and  mental  organisms  of  the  human 
and  lower  forms  of  being.  From  the  hints 
already  given,  the  thoughtful  reader  must 
have  caught  a glimpse  of  an  infinite  chasm 
yawning  between  the  man  and  even  his 
faithful  dog;  though  its  expansion,  em- 
bracing an  eternity  of  existence  and  de- 
velopment, may  not  have  been  fully  com- 
prehended by  him  thus  far.  He  has  only 
to  note  the  essential  constituent  element 


of  difference  in  the  vital  and  mental  enti- 
ties on  each  side  of  this  hiatus,  and  it  will 
flash  upon  him  at  once  as  the  grandest  of 
biological  conceptions.  Here  it  is,  in  a 
condensed  form.  While  the  lower  animals 
receive  at  birth  their  specific  stores  of 
knowledge  suited  to  their  environment 
(without  the  capacity  of  teaching  or  being 
taught,  except  to  a very  limited  specific 
extent),  thus  adapting  them  exclusively  to 
this  single  state  of  existence,  the  human 
being  receives  no  knowledge  at  birth, — not 
a single  idea  of  inherited  intelligence, — 
but, as  before  observed,  an  unlimited  blank 
capacity  for  being  taught,  having  an  inte- 
rior organism  capable  of  being  cultivated 
and  expanded  to  eternity!  This  alone 
constitutes  a wall  as  broad  as  the  earth 
and  as  high  as  the  heavens  between  the 
man  and  the  brute. 

But,  as  a necessary  psychological  corol- 
lary and  scientific  outgrowth  of  this  sub- 
lime demarkation,  lower  animals  can  not 
have  the  slightest  conception  of  a future 
life,  since  their  vital  and  mental  organisms, 
as  well  as  their  specific  stores  of  inherited 
knowledge,  are  only  suited  to  and  limited 
within  a temporary  existence.  Hence,  a 
future  life  of  conscious  activity,  being  un- 
anticipated, undesired,  and  wholly  uncon- 
ceived of, by  lower  species, would  be  of  not 
the  least  advantage  even  to  the  most  cul- 
tivated orang-outang,  and  would  be  unap- 
preciated by  such  creatures  even  if  they 
had  it,  since  it  would  be  but  an  eternal 
sameness  without  the  eternal  advances  in 
culture  necessary  to  make  it  otherwise,  of 
which  their  very  organic  natures  are  wholly 
insusceptible. 

The  greatest  and  most  important  differ- 
ence between  man  and  the  lower  animal, 
even  including  the  higher  apes, — that 
difference  which  may  be  properly  called 
the  distinguishing  characteristic, — consists 
in  the  fact  that  no  animal  below  man  has 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


471 


or  can  have  a conception  of  life  after 
death,  from  the  very  nature  of  their  in- 
stinctive knowledge  and  the  manner  of  its 
reception.  Whatever  other  differences 
may  exist,  and  they  are  numberless  and 
startling,  this  is  incomparably  the  most 
intrinsic  and  universal. 

All  this  limitation  to  earthly  objects, 
however,  is  exactly  the  reverse  with  man. 
With  his  unlimited  blank  capacity  at  birth 
for  receiving  instruction,  he  immediately 
acquires  with  his  ordinary  and  rudimental 
intelligence,  even  if  not  specially  taught 
it,  a conception  of  living  on  forever;  and 
not  only  such  a conception  of  a future  ex- 
istence, but  a desire  for  and  appreciation 
of  such  an  endless  opportunity  of  acquir- 
ing knowledge.  There  is  no  reasonable 
or  scientific  ground  for  supposing  that  a 
longing  anticipation  of  and  a universal 
aspiration  for  a life  beyond  death  could 
have  been  thus  made  an  indestructible 
part  of  man’s  mental  organism  were  there 
no  such  a possibility  as  a future  life  in  the 
divine  economy  of  the  universe.  This 
blank  capacity  for  unlimited  cultivation 
and  eternal  advancement  in  knowledge 
becomes  the  guarantee  of  man’s  immor- 
tality,— while  the  lower  animal,  having  no 
such  a capacity  as  a title-deed  to  a future 
life,  gives  back  at  death  the  mental  and 
vital  drop  of  its  essential  entity,  which,  in- 
stead of  being  annihilated  or  in  any  sense 
lost  or  blotted  out,  exists  forever, — not  as 
an  identity  of  being,  but  falls  back  and  is 
re-absorbed  into  the  great  and  infinite 
fountain  of  life  and  intelligence  from 
which  it  originally  came  as  a spark  of 
being,  the  same  as  a drop  of  water  which 
rises  from  the  sea  in  the  form  of  vapory 
mist,  and  after  being  carried  by  clouds  to 
distant  lands  and  caused  to  descend  in 
rain  to  water  the  soil,  serving  thereby  its 
temporary  use,  percolates  to  the  river, 
through  whose  channel  it  at  last  finds  its  ■ 


way  back  to  the  original  fountain  whence 
it  came,  where,  by  illiquation,  it  forever 
loses  its  iden.ity  in  the  bosom  of  the 
mother  ocean,  without  an  atom  of  its  sub- 
stance being  annihilated. 

Even  the  infant, at  birth, or  before  it  has 
a conscious  thought,  is  thus  the  heir  by 
title-deed  to  immortal  life,  though  its  ac- 
tual knowledge  is  not  the  millionth  part 
that  of  the  pig  or  puppy  of  the  same  age. 
It  starts,  thus,  a blank  as  to  intelligence; 
but,  having  the  infinite  endorsement  of  its 
father  and  mother,  which  involves  the  un- 
developed capability  of  analyzing  the  stars 
and  weighing  the  planets, it  holds  wrapped 
up  in  its  vital  and  mental  organism  the 
ego  of  an  indestructible  personal  identity; 
and  should  it  thus  die  untaught,  and  even 
unconscious  of  its  own  being,  its  magjia 
charta  of  selfhood  will  be  its  passport  to 
the  primary  college  of  the  angels,  and 
thence  to  the  university  over  whose  en- 
trance is  written  in  letters  of  life — The 
Garden  of  Eternal  Progress. 

Here,  then,  in  this  purely  scientific  con- 
ception brought  to  the  surface,  that  the 
life  of  every  organic  being  is  but  an  infin- 
itesimal drop  from  out  the  vital  fountain 
of  God’s  existence  as  truly  as  the  raindrop 
is  but  a speck  of  the  ocean,  we  see  a com- 
plete solution  of  the  infinite  problem  of 
the  origin  of  life,  which  evolutionists  and 
materialistic  philosophers  have  abandoned 
as  an  inexplicable  mystery.  Mr.  Darwin, 
with  his  purely  physical  conception  of  or- 
ganic life,  may  well  say: — 

“In  what  manner  the  mental  powers  were  first 
developed  in  the  lower  organisms  is  as  hopeless  an 
inquiry  as  how  life  itself  first  originated.  These 
are  problems  for  the  distant  future , if  they  are  ever 
to  be  solved  by  man.” — Descent  of  Man,  p.  66. 

Yes,  the  “distant  future.”  Yet  it  has 
not  been  so  very  distant, after  all;  for  here 
the  whole  problem  is  solved.  By  demon- 
strating the  miraculous  creation  of  the 


472 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


first  species  as  necessarily  a fact  of  science, 
and  with  it  the  necessary  scientific  truth 
of  God’s  existence,  He  becomes  the  author 
of  life  and  mental  powers;  and,  as  organic 
life  is  a substantial  entity  and  could  only 
come  from  a pre-existing  fountain  of  life, 
hence  the  solution  is  clear  that  the  life 
and  mental  powers  of  every  organic  crea- 
ture originated  primordially  as  infinites- 
imal atoms  of  God’s  own  self-existent  vital 
and  mental  being;  and  thus  it  becomes  as 
naturally  and  consistently  a scientific  so- 
lution of  the  origin  of  life  as  that  the  ex- 
istence of  God  is  an  unavoidable  scientific 
truth  growing  out  of  the  demonstrated 
fact  of  the  primordial  miraculous  crea- 
tion of  the  species.  How  teleologically 
sublime  and  beautiful,  therefore,  are  these 
solutions,  which  the  great  revolutionary 
theory  of  descent  abandons  as  a hopeless 
mystery,  thus  leaving  the  world  in  utter 
darkness ! 

After  this  digression  and  attempted  ex- 
planation of  one  of  the  most  important 
problems  of  life,  I return  to  the  considera- 
tion of  rudimentary  organs.  I have  inti- 
mated that  all  physiological  phenomena, 
such  as  the  marking  of  offspring  by  the 
imagination  or  mental  impressions  occur- 
ring among  human  mothers  to  which  I have 
alluded,  are  equally  observable  and  liable 
to  occur  among  our  domesticated  and  wild 
species  of  animals;  .while  the  most  un- 
questioned proof  exists,  and  in  great  abun- 
dance, among  our  scientific  breeders  and 
fanciers,  that  such  abnormities  as  I have 
been  discussing  are  no  less  common 
among  lower  animals  than  among  human 
beings. 

I shall  refer  to  just  as  few  cases  as  pos- 
sible to  barely  sustain  my  position  and 
complete  the  chain  of  evidence  prepara- 
tory to  the  final  hypothesis  which  shall 
solve  the  problem  of  rudimentary  organs. 
A brief  citation  from  Mr.  Uarwin  himself 


will  appropriately  introduce  this  class  of 
evidence : — 

“ In  the  case  often  quoted  from  Lord  Morton,  a 
nearly  purely  bred  Arabian  chestnut  mare  bore  a 
hybrid  to  a quagga;  she  was  subsequently  sent  to 
Sir  Gore  Ouseley,  and  produced  two  colts  by  a 
black  Arabian  horse.  1 hese  colts  were  partially 
dun-colored,  and  were  striped  on  the  legs  more 
plainly  than  the  real  hybrid,  or  even  than  thequagga. 

. . . But  what  makes  the  case  still  more  striking  is 
that  the  hair  of  the  mane  in  these  colts  resembled 
that  of  the  quagga,  being  short,  stiff,  and  upright. 
Hence,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  quagga  af- 
fected the  character  of  the  offspring  subsequently 
begot  by  the  black  Arabian  horse. — Animals  and 
Plants,  vol.  i.,  p.  484. 

This  single  passage  from  Mr.  Darwin’s 
works  would  be  all  the  evidence  I would 
need  to  prove  my  position,  that  this  Ara- 
bian mare  marked  her  subsequent  colts 
through  her  imagination  or  her  mental 
impression  retained  from  her  recollection 
of  the  striped  appearance  of  that  quagga 
and  her  hybrid  colt,  were  it  not  for  one 
important  fact,  and  that  is,  Mr.  Darwin 
distinctly  avows,  immediately  following 
this  quotation,  that  it  was  the  physical  im- 
pression produced  on  the  mare’s  corporeal 
organism  by  the  quagga, which  she  retained 
in  her  circulation  and  which  counteracted 
the  corporeal  influence  of  the  black  A rabian 
horse ! Now,  I take  direct  issue  with  Mr. 
Darwin  on  this  question  of  scientific  fact, 
and  not  only  declare  that  he  is  mistaken, 
but  will  prove  it  by  the  very  witness  to 
whom  he  refers  in  this  connection  for  cor- 
roboration. 

This  purely  physical  view  taken  by  Mr. 
Darwin  is  manifestly  the  only  view  of  the 
case  he  can  take;  for,  to  admit  that  the 
imagination  or  memory  of  that  mare  could 
not  only  change  the  color  of  her  future 
foals  to  that  of  the  quagga,  which  had  so 
impressed  her  recollection,  but  could  ac- 
tually change  in  like  manner  the  corporeal 
texture  of  the  mane,  making  it  “stiff  and 
upright,”  would  be  to  at  once  admit  the 


Chap.  IX. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


473 


mind  of  that  animal  as  a substantial  entity, 
since  nothing  but  substance  can  produce* 
a corporeal  result.  But,  as  before  re- 
marked, such  an  idea  as  an  incorporeal 
vital  and  mental  organism  as  the  coun- 
terpart of  the  physical  structure  of  an 
animal  never  found  a resting-place  for 
one  moment  in  his  thoughts;  or,  if  it  had, 
he  probably  would  never  have  been  heard 
of  as  the  founder  of  Darwinism. 

Before  adducing  Mr.  Darwin’s  own  wit- 
ness, I will  merely  hint  that  an  almost  con- 
clusive reason  why  this  supposition  of  a 
physical  impression  left  by  the  quagga  on 
the  mare’s  organism  can  not  be  true,  is 
the  already  demonstrated  fact  that  a con- 
stant change  and  substitution  was  going 
on  among  the  corporeal  atoms  constitut- 
ing the  mare’s  body  after  her  relationship 
with  the  quagga.  Is  it  possible,  in  view 
of  this  fact,  that,  years  after  such  relation- 
ship, so  much  of  that,  at  first,  infinitesimal 
impression  could  remain  in  the  physical 
circulation  as  to  counteract  and  neutralize 
the  organic  influence  of  the  sire  of  her 
foals?  I believe  that  any  mind  competent 
to  draw  a logical  conclusion  on  any  philo- 
sophical question,  if  it  can  but  once  grasp 
the  conception  of  a mental  and  vital  or- 
ganism, as  supposed  by  my  hypothesis, 
will  repudiate  the  physical  interpretation 
given  by  Mr.  Darwin  as  wholly  out  of  the 
question. 

But  I now  propose  to  take  the  case  en- 
tirely away  from  him  by  direct  evidence. 
One  of  the  witnesses  to  whom  he  refers  at 
the  foot  of  the  page  from  which  I last 
quoted  as  having  recorded  similar  remark- 
able instances  of  offspring  being  marked, 
is  Alexander  Walker,  on  Intermarriage.  I 
have  turned  to  this  author,  and  to  my  sur- 
prise find  that  he  records  the  same  case 
here  quoted  from  Mr.  Darwin  about  the 
quagga,  and  almost  in  the  very  same  words, 
after  which  he  utterly  repudiates  Mr.  Dar- 


win’s physical  view  of  the  problem,  and 
concludes  in  these  words: — 

“As,  however,  there  are  ample  proofs  of  the 
power  of  the  mother's  imagination  among  quadru- 
peds, especially  over  color,  this  explanation  is  very 
improbable." — A LEX.  W ALKER, Intermarriage,  p.245 

He  then  goes  on  to  relate,  in  the  same 
connection,  a number  or  authentic  circum- 
stances well  known  among  breeders,  which 
go  to  prove  the  power  of  the  brute-mothe:  i 
imagination  or  mental  impression  to  mark 
offspring,  independently  of  all  physical 
contact.  One  case  particularly  he  relates 
which  occurred  on  the  farm  of  Mr.  Mus- 
tard, of  Angus,  in  which  a neighbor’s  ox 
broke  into  his  field  and  ran  for  some  time 
with  one  of  his  cows  before  she  was  taken 
to  the  male.  This  ox  was  spotted  and 
horned , while  all  the  stock  of  Mr.  Mustard 
were  pure  red  and  without  horns.  Yet- this 
black  and  white  ox  made  such  an  impres- 
sion on  the  mind  of  the  cow  that  her  future 
calf  was  marked  with  black  and  white  spots 
and  had  horns  like  those  of  the  ox!  Mr. 
Walker  adds: — 

“The  ox  was  white,  with  black  spots,  and  horned. 
Mr.  Mustard  had  not  a horned  beast  in  his  posses- 
sion, nor  one  with  any  white  on  it.  Nevertheless, 
the  produce  of  the  following  spring  was  a black  and 
white  calf  with  horns." 

What  now  becomes  of  Mr.  Darwin’s 
physical  theory  in  regard  to  the  quagga? 
Here  is  not  only  the  color,  but  one  of  the 
most  distinctly  prominent  corporeal  struc- 
tures— the  horns — produced  as  the  result 
alone  of  mental  impression  or  imagination. 
I could  adduce  other  authorities  equally 
conclusive,  but  shall  consider  the  fact  es- 
tablished even  to  the  satisfaction  of  Mr. 
Darwin,  since  he  invited  my  attention  to 
Mr.  Walker  as  good  authority  on  this  ques- 
tion. 

I may  add,  however,  that  we  have  here 
a beautiful  illustration  and  corroboration 
of  the  scriptural  account  of  the  plan 


474 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


adopted  by  Jacob  to  obtain  an  adequate 
compensation  from  his  father-in-law  Laban, 
by  causing  his  cattle  to  bring  forth  off- 
spring “ringstraked,  speckled,  and  spotted,” 
which  were  to  constitute  Jacob’s  share  of 
the  stock,  according  to  contract.  This  has 
been  supposed  to  be  miraculous  or  a di- 
rect interposition  on  the  part  of  the  Lord 
to  favor  Jacob,  since  he  modestly  attributes 
it  to  divine  assistance,  as  we  may  safely 
do  with  all  our  creditable  deeds.  But  the 
truth  is, it  was  a scientific  process  of  breed- 
ing discovered,  or  at  least  carried  into 
practice,  by  this  rustic  herdman,  which  it 
has  taken  our  scientists  thousands  of  years 
to  find  out,  and  which  they  are  only  just 
now  beginning  to  understand. 

Though  the  details  of  this  process  are 
not  given,  it  is  quite  easy  to  imagine  them. 
The  account  simply  tells  us  that  he  “pilled” 
rods,  and  placed  them  in  the  troughs  as 
the  cattle  came  up  to  drink,  which  caused 
them  to-  conceive  with  the  result  named. 
It  is  well  understood  that  most  of  our 
domestic  animals,  especially  those  of  the 
bovine  genus, are  mortally  afraid  of  snakes. 
It  would  require  but  ordinary  ingenuity  to 
conceal  these  imitation  serpents  at  the 
bottom  of  the  clear  water  in  the  trough, 
and,  while  the  animals  were  drinking,  with 
their  eyes  intently  fixed  on  the  water,  to 
spring  the  trap  and  cause  the  mimic  rep- 
tiles to  leap  forth  from  their  lurking-place 
and  seize  the  brutes  by  their  noses.  I can 
imagine  the  entire  operation, and  the  form 
of  the  trap  employed  for  the  purpose,  as 
vividly  as  if  I had  been  one  of  Jacob’s 
assistant  herdmcn;  and  I am  willing  to 
guarantee  that  any  breeder  who  may  test 
it,  according  to  the  plan  here  suggested, 
will  obtain  essentially  the  same  result 
by  which  the  young  patriarch  got  even 
with  his  avaricious  father-in-law.  (See 
Gen.,  chap,  xxx.,  v.  37.) 

What,  therefore,  can  be  said  to  these 


things?  Without  admitting  the  fact  that 
the  mental  impression  alone  of  the  brute- 
mother  can  permanently  mark  and  deform 
her  offspring  independently  of  any  physical 
connection  whatever,  and  that  this  is  ef- 
fected through  the  vital  and  mental  organ- 
ism, as  I have  assumed,  then  here  is  a class 
of  facts  well  authenticated  which  will  have 
to  go  wholly  unexplained.  Mr.  Darwin’s 
monistic  view  of  physical  organism,  with 
mind  but  an  insubstantial  nonentity,  leaves 
this  whole  class  of  phenomena  without  a 
ray  of  light.  My  view  of  a dual  organism 
constituting  each  living,  sentient  creature, 
makes  the  entire  problem  one  of  the  sim- 
plest and  most  easily  explained  phenomena 
in  Nature.  Can  the  theory  be  a true  one 
which  can  not  explain  them  at  all  ? Is  the 
theory  a false  one  which  makes  them  as 
clear  as  crystal? 

I am  now  prepared  for  the  hypothesis 
by  which  these  so-called  rudimentary  or- 
gans may  be  rationally  and  logically  as 
well  as  scientifically  accounted  for,  which 
the  reader  has,  no  doubt,  ere  this,  clearly 
anticipated.  It  is,  that  such  abnormities 
are  the  direct  result  of  the  mental  impres- 
sions of  mothers,  re-enforced  and  accumu- 
lated through  countless  generations, caused 
by  the  want  of  or  necessity  for  such  organic 
structures.  For  example,  if  the  mental 
anxiety  of  the  cow  referred  to  by  Alexander 
Walker  to  retain  the  company  of  that 
spotted  ox  should  so  act  on  her  vital  and 
mental  organism  as  not  only  to  convey 
the  spots  to  her  future  calf  but  also  to 
produce  the  physical  abnormity  of  horns 
in  her  offspring,  and  that,  too,  by  only  a 
single  impression,  is  it  not  every  way  rea- 
sonable that  the  want  of  and  almost  abso- 
lute necessity  for  incisors,  for  hundreds 
and  even  thousands  of  generations  and 
many  times  involving  great  physical  suffer- 
ing and  almost  starvation,  should  so  act 
on  that  particular  portion  of  the  embryonic 


CiiAr.  IX. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


475 


being  as  to  result  in  attaching  at  least 
partly  formed  teeth,  for  which  so  many 
thousands  of  mothers  have  felt  the  need  ? 

Whales,  which  are  without  teeth  and 
provided  only  with  whalebone  in  their 
stead,  it  is  easy  to  imagine,  have  been 
thousands  upon  thousands  of  times  so 
situated  that  they  have  felt  the  necessity 
for  teeth  to  assist  the  mastication  and 
comminution  of  substances  for  food  which 
would  otherwise  prohibit  deglutition.  By 
the  same  law  as  that  which  acted  on  the 
bovine  embryo,  cetacean  mothers  have 
impressed  upon  their  young,  through  un- 
numbered generations,  the  rudimental 
forms  of  teeth  through  their  own  want  of 
such  organs,  till  imperfect  structures  have 
at  last  become  developed  in  the  embryos 
at  the  most  impressible  period  of  gestation. 
There  is  surely  nothing  more  incredible 
in  this  fact  than  that  the  desire  of  the  cow 
should  convey  the  horns  and  the  color  of 
that  spotted  ox  alone  through  her  mental 
want,  and  attach  them  permanently  to  her 
calf!  It  is  not  at  all  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  cow  actually  coveted  the 
spots  and  horns  of  that  ox,  and  desired 
them  for  ornament  and  use,  and  thus  im- 
pressed them  on  her  offspring,  just  as  a 
human  mother’s  desire  for  a certain  kind 
of  fruit  has  been  known  to  print  it  dis- 
tinctly upon  the  child.  So  the  want  of 
teeth  and  their  necessity  for  ages  in  the 
toothless  bovine  animals  and  whales  might 
reasonably  have  so  impressed  the  minds 
of  these  brute-mothers  as  to  produce  teeth 
in  their  embryos. 

1 he  same  is  also  true  of  the  rudiments 
of  legs  in  the  hinder  portion  of  the  whale’s 
body.  For  countless  generations,  whales, 
from  the  extreme  circumstances  of  pon- 
derous bulk  and  shallow  water  when  fora- 
ging along  the  shores,  have  been  liable  to 
be  caught  behind  sand-drifts  or  within  a 
delta  on  the  ebbing  of  the  tide,  and  thus  ! 


have  been  many  times  compelled  to  exert 
all  their  strength  to  regain  the  open  sea. 
An  incident  of  this  kind  occurred  recently 
on  the  coast  of  Long  Island,  but  a short 
distance  from  New  York,  where  two  whales 
became  stranded  behind  a sand-bank  and 
were  killed  by  a company  of  sailors.  One 
of  these  men,  relating  to  me  the  circum- 
stance, said  that  all  these  creatures  needed 
was  a pair  of  legs  behind  and  they  would 
have  easily  made  their  way  over  the  bar; 
and  I was  struck  by  the  remark  that  they 
seemed  to  exert  their  strength  and  move 
their  bodies  while  struggling,  as  if  using 
“ invisible  legs."  This  alone  proves  that  if 
the  whale  had  ever  possessed  legs  they 
never  could  have  become  aborted  from 
disuse,  while  it  seems  infinitely  more  prob- 
able that  the  necessity  for  and  want  of 
some  such  organs  as  legs,  flippers,  or  fins, 
on  the  hinder  portion  of  the  body  in  emer- 
gencies like  the  one  described,  would,  dur- 
ing thousands  of  generations,  so  impress 
the  embryos  as  to  have  finally  produced 
these  rudimental  bones.  Again  I assert 
there  is  nothing  more  marvelous  or  in- 
credible in  this  than  that  a mare  should  by 
simple  memory  and  desire  reproduce  the 
stripes  and  stiff  upright  mane  of  the  quagga 
in  her  future  foals  after  years  of  separa- 
tion, or  than  the  conveyance  of  spots  and 
horns  by  the  cow  to  her  subsequent  calf, 
alone  by  her  want  and  vivid  mental  im- 
pressions. 

I account  for  the  rudiments  of  legs  and 
of  a pelvis  in  the  body  of  the  boa-constric- 
tor in  the  same  way  and  by  the  same  scien- 
tific hypothesis.  It  being  the  largest  of 
serpents,  there  would  naturally  many  times 
be  situations  in  which  it  would  be  difficult 
for  so  ponderous  a snake  to  make  headway 
over  the  ground,  especially  if  a little  as- 
cending, and  this  constant  necessity  for 
some  protruding  organ  of  the  body  to  seize 
the  ground  and  prevent  slippage  acting  on 


476 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


the  minds  of  these  subtle  and  intelligent 
animals  for  thousands  of  generations  would 
be  most  likely  to  so  work  on  the  life-germs 
of  the  young  as  to  actually  cause  these  ru- 
diments of  legs;  while  the  correlation  of 
parts  and  co-ordination  of  structural  ar- 
rangement would  necessarily  frame  also 
the  rudimental  pelvis,  since  no  hind-legs 
could  be  supported  except  by  such  sustain- 
ing framework. 

It  is  a singular  fact  that  while  my  hy- 
pothesis rationally  explains  these  great  ex- 
amples of  rudimentary  organs  especially 
cited  by  Mr.  Darwin,  Professor  Haeckel, 
and  all  writers  on  evolution,  it  as  clearly 
accounts  for  the  fact  of  the  absence  of 
such  rudiments  in  smaller  species  of  the 
same  families.  For  example,  while  the 
boa  has  these  rudimentary  leg-bones,  it 
appears  evident  that  this  particular  species 
would  be  the  most  liable  of  all  the  serpent 
family  to  pass  through  such  experiences 
and  situations  as  would  impress  the  mind, 
and  superinduce  in  the  embryos  such  ab- 
normities. The  same  is  true  of  the  whale 
tribe,  since  it  is  the  largest  of  all  the  fishes 
or  fish-mammals.  No  other  fish  would 
ever  be  so  liable  to  situations  which  would 
be  likely  to  impress  the  mind  in  the  direc- 
tion of  such  rudiments,  as  already  ex- 
plained. 

And  right  here  the  vast  superiority  of 
this  explanation  over  that  of  Mr.  Darwin 
looms  distinctly  into  view.  According  to 
my  hypothesis,  a large  serpent  would  often 
stand  in  need  of  some  such  organs  as  legs, 
and  such  a desire,  I maintain,  acting  for 
ages  on  the  young,  could  finally  superin- 
duce these  rudiments;  while  all  the  smaller 
species  of  snakes,  having  no  necessity  for 
such  organs,  from  their  lightness  and  the 
ease  with  which  they  can  get  over  the 
ground,  would  necessarily  never  lead  to  the 
possession  of  such  desire  or  such  rudi- 
ments! 


It  is  a triumphant  fact  that  the  anatomy 
of  these  various  species  of  snakes  corrobo- 
rates my  hypothesis  fully.  But  how  is  it 
with  Mr.  Darwin’s?  The  facts  are  clearly 
against  him;  for,  if  snakes  have  descended 
from  quadrupeds,  as  he  maintains,  from 
the  rudiments  of  legs  found  in  one  of  them, 
then  all  snakes  should  contain  alike  rudi- 
mentary legs,  but  more  especially  and  dis- 
tinctly should  they  be  seen  in  the  smaller 
snakes,  since  all  reason  and  analogy  would 
go  to  show  that  they  are  a later  degeneracy 
from  quadrupeds  than  the  boa!  Mr.  Dar- 
win in  a tantalizing  way  refers  to  those 
who  maintain  that  rudimentary  organs 
were  retained  by  the  Creator  for  the  sake 
of  symmetry,  and  asks  why  the  Creator  did 
not  keep  up  tire  symmetry  in  the  smaller 
snakes,  since  not  one  of  them  has  the  vestige 
of  a rudimentary  leg.  But  he  never  thought 
how  this  ironical  blow  would  rebound 
against  his  own  hypothesis!  I now  ask 
him,  if  snakes  have  descended  from  quad- 
rupeds, why  is  it  that  only  the  largest  and 
oldest  serpents,  which  have  had  an  abun- 
dance of  time  to  outgrow  their  former 
structure,  retain  rudimentary  legs,  while 
the  smaller  species  of  snakes  have  not 
a vestige  of  such  rudiments  remaining, 
though  they  have,  without  a logical  doubt, 
more  recently  branched  off  from  quadru- 
peds and  lost  the  use  of  their  legs?  His 
logic  and  sarcasm  are  thus  hopelessly  shat- 
tered, while  his  theory  is  utterly  dumb.  He 
can  give  not  a shadow  of  explanation  for 
this  ridiculously  absurd  performance  of  his 
god — Natural  Selection, with  the  sobriquet 
“survival  of  the  fittest”! 

While  I show  scientifically  why  the  whale 
— the  largest  of  fish-mammals — has  rudi- 
ments of  legs,  and  by  the  same  logic  why 
not  one  of  the  smaller  fish-mammals,  such 
as  the  clugong,  lamantin,  porpoise,  &c., 
could  reasonably  be  expected  to  possess 
them,  Mr.  Darwin  admits  that  the  facts 


Chap.  IX 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


All 


correspond  exactly  with  my  hypothesis,  and 
that  not  one  of  the  smaller  fish-mammals 
have  a sign  of  a rudimentary  leg  in  their 
bodies.  While  he  does  not  question  that 
these  smaller  fish-mammals  were  also  re- 
duced from  quadrupeds  the  same  as  the 
whale,  and  in  all  reason  were  a more  recent 
reduction,  he  is  hopelessly  dumb  as  to  any 
reason  why  these  smaller  creatures  do  not 
show  a vestige  of  rudimentary  legs,  when 
they  should  really  possess  them  more  dis- 
tinctly marked  than  the  whale,  if  there  is 
the  least  truth  in  his  hypothesis  of  their 
degeneracy  from  quadrupeds. 

Suppose  we  had  been  completely  igno- 
rant of  all  these  rudimentary  facts  of  teeth 
and  legs,  and  that  my  hypothesis  had  been 
sprung  in  scientific  discussion.  It  would 
have  been  maintained  naturally  enough  by 
opponents  of  the  hypothesis,  if  it  were  pos- 
sibly true,  that  the  want  or  desire  of  the 
brute-mother  could  impress  the  desired  ob- 
ject on  the  embryo,  then,  in  that  case,  the 
cow  so  often  standing  in  need  of  upper  in- 
cisors wrould  before  this  have  produced 
them  in  the  embryonic  calf,  and  the  same 
would  also  be  true  with  the  toothless  whale  ! 
The  opponents  of  my  hypothesis  would 
have  even  gone  further,  and  assumed  that 
although  small  snakes  might  not  feel  a 
necessity  for  legs  sufficiently  to  impress 
their  embryos,  yet  that  a very  large  and 
unwieldy  snake  like  the  boa-constrictor 
would  often  need  legs,  and  therefore  it 
would  be  but  reasonable  to  expect  that 
such  a constant  necessity  should  finally 
have  left  their  impression  on  the  offspring, 
if  my  hypothesis  had  any  foundation!  So 
the  whale,  at  least,  for  the  same  reason, 
they  would  urge,  should  have  impressed 
its  young  with  legs,  though  the  absence  of 
necessity  and  desire  in  the  smaller  fishes 
would  necessarily  prevent  such  a result, 
on  the  basis  of  my  theory!  Thus,  the  very 
phenomena  which  a shrewd  opponent 


would  have  urged  against  my  hypothesis 
as  liable  to  occur  if  it  was  true,  turn  out 
to  be  scientific  facts;  and  hence,  the  very 
predictions  which  a scientist  would  have 
made  in  view  of  the  probable  truth  of  such 
an  hypothesis,  after  knowing  the  facts  re- 
corded by  Alexander  Walker,  are  fulfilled 
in  advance,  confirming  my  solution  of  the 
problem  of  rudimentary  organs,  while  em- 
phatically condemning  that  of  Mr.  Darwin. 

I am  thus  through  with  the  great  argu- 
ment of  rudimentary  organs,  on  which  such 
stress  has  been  laid  by  evolutionists.  I do 
not  pretend  to  go  into  the  details  of  all  the 
organs  or  parts  of  the  various  animals 
which  have  been  supposed  to  be  rudiment- 
ary, as  time  and  space  would  forbid. 
Neither  do  I claim  that  the  exact  solution 
could  in  every  case  be  distinctly  made  out. 
But,  as  the  great  representative  facts  bear- 
ing on  this  phase  of  evolution — those  facts 
always  referred  to  as  the  strongest — have 
been  taken  away  from  the  theory  by  the 
very  meaning  of  the  terms  evolution,  de- 
velopment, and  survival  of  the  fittest,  and 
shown  to  be  fatally  opposed  to  all  such 
ideas  of  retrogression,  I submit  the  ques- 
tion to  the  intelligence  of  the  reader, 
whether  my  solution  of  the  problem  is  not 
much  more  probably  correct  than  the  hy- 
pothesis which  can  only  explain  it  by  ig- 
noring the  true  meaning  of  the  principal 
words  employed  in  the  solution! 

Summary. 

i. — I will  now,  as  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, briefly  condense  the  arguments  em- 
ployed in  this,  in  order  to  bring  them  in  a 
mass  before  the  reader.  The  very  strongest 
argument,  probably,  known  to  evolution- 
ists, is  the  one  based  on  Rudimentary  Or- 
gans; and  the  strongest  facts  ever  em- 
ployed to  prove  the  existence  of  such  or- 
gans are  those  cited  from  Darwin  and 
Haeckel  at  the  commencement  of  the 


478 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


chapter,  namely,  the  embryonic  teeth  in 
the  calf  and  the  whale,  and  the  rudiments 
of  legs  in  the  whale  and  boa-constrictor. 

2.  — dt  has  been  shown  clearly  that  these 
organs  never  could  have  come  by  descent 
from  ancestors  having  such  organs  in  a 
perfect  state,  as  such  a loss  of  useful 
structures  would  be  a retrogression  of  the 
species  to  a lower  plane,  while  such  dete- 
rioration is  exactly  opposed  to  every  true 
definition  of  evolution,  development,  or 
survival  of  the  fittest. 

3.  — I quoted  from  Darwin,  Huxley,  and 
Spencer,  direct  evidence  to  prove  that 
Evolution  in  all  cases  meant  progress  to- 
ward perfection,  the  survival  of  the  fittest, 
a change  from  the  simple  to  the  complex, 
from  the  homogeneous  to  the  heteroge- 
neous,and  from  the  few  to  the  multiplicity 
of  parts.  Whereas,  a creature  like  the 
cow  losing  its  teeth,  or  a species  of  ani- 
mals like  that  of  the  whale  or  boa-constric- 
tor having  completely  developed  legs  and 
losing  them  by  development,  would  be 
clearly  a degradation  and  a deterioration 
of  the  species,  or  a survival  of  the  weakest 
and  most  unfit  in  the  struggle  for  existence. 
Such  degeneracy  would  be  a change  di- 
rectly from  the  complex  to  the  simple, 
from  the  heterogeneous  to  the  homoge- 
neous, and  from  the  multiplicity  of  parts 
to  the  few  parts;  and  thus,  in  every  sense 
of  the  word,  such  a transformation  of  a 
species  would  absolutely  contradict  the 
only  true  definition  of  evolution,  develop- 
ment, or  survival  of  the  fittest,  as  accepted 
by  the  whole  scientific  world. 

4.  — It  was  shown,  that,  according  to  the 
rudimentary  argument,  Evolution  wrought 
on  the  bovine  genus  a million  generations 
to  produce  a perfect  set  of  upper  teeth, 
and  then  reversed  its  programme,  working 
another  million  generations  to  take  such 
teeth  away, leaving  the  naked  gums; — that 
it  spent  a million  years,  by  saving  up  small 


variations,  to  construct  the  perfect  legs  of 
the  boa-constrictor  or  its  immediate  an- 
cestors, and  then  wrought  another  million 
years  in  taking  such  useful  organs  away, 
leaving  only  the  “aborted  little  bones’’ 
beneath  the  skin,  for  no  imaginable  pur- 
pose under  the  heavens  except  to  assist 
Darwin  and  Huxley  in  their  theory  of 
descent; — that  natural  selection  gave  the 
most  “scrutinizing”  care  to  a certain  fish,, 
working  a million  generations  to  raise  it 
to  a hoofed  quadruped,  through  countless 
transmutations,  and  then  turned  round 
and  worked  an  equal  length  of  time  to 
take  away  its  legs  and  teeth  and  reduce  it 
back  to  its  primal  form  of  fish!  Thus, the 
necessities  of  this  rudimentary  argument, 
in  order  to  make  it  of  the  least  use  to 
Darwinism,  forces  evolution  and  develop- 
ment to  signify  either  backward  or  for- 
ward, up  or  down,  improvement  or  retro- 
gression; makes  it  mean  either  to  go  for- 
ward toward  the  complex  or  backward  to- 
ward the  simple, — either  to  become  hete- 
rogeneous or  homogeneous, — either  to 
multiply  parts  and  organs  or  take  them 
away,  and  that,  too,  in  utter  defiance  of 
etymology,  philology,  and  the  standard  de- 
finitions of  words!  Can  such  a reckless, 
arbitrary,  and  contradictory  system,  by  any 
possibility  be  the  true  scientific  theory  of 
man’s  origin?  The  common  intelligence 
of  every  reader  must  compel  him  to  an- 
swer, No! 

5. — It  was  shown  that  a miracle  would 
be  as  strictly  a scientific  fact  as  the  grow- 
ing of  a tree  from  an  acorn,  according  to 
the  definition  given  of  “science”  by  Huxley 
and  Spencer,  provided  the  weight  of  evi- 
dence sustained  such  miraculous  event. 
It  was  further  shown,  that,  according  to 
Mr.  Darwin’s  idea  of  the  origin  of  the  first! 
forms  by  miraculous  creation  as  a start 
and  foundation  for  evolution,  it  unavoid- 
ably makes  such  primeval  miraculous  crea- 


Chap.  IX. 


479 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


tion  a scientific  fact, otherwise  there  can  be 
nothing  scientific  about  his  entire  theory, 
based  upon  such  fact.  Hence,  Darwin  is 
obliged  to  admit  that  at  least  one  miracle 
or  supernatural  event  is  scientific. 

6.  — It  was  also  shown  that  if  evolution 
can  really  develop  a fish  into  a “hoofed 
animal, " and  can  then  go  to  work  and  re- 
convert the  quadruped  into  a fish,  it  can, 
of  course,  continue  on  down  and  transform 
the  fish  into  a crustacean,  the  crustacean 
into  a mollusk,  and  the  mollusk  into  a 
sponge;  because  the  single  instance  of  re- 
trograde transformation  proves  it.  Hence, 
it  follows,  according  to  these  learned  natu- 
ralists, that  there  may  have  been  a down- 
ward or  retrograde  development  from  the 
highest  mammal  to  the  lowest  polyp  in  the 
pre-Silurian  ages,  thus  producing  by  natu- 
ral means  without  miraculous  interposition 
the  first  simple  beings  for  Mr.  Darwin’s 
upward  evolution  to  commence  on!  This 
being  so,  geologists  are  liable  at  any  time 
to  unearth  from  beneath  the  pre-Lauren- 
tian  deposits  the  paleontologic  remains  of 
monkeys,  quadrupeds,  birds,  and  fishes, 
which  have  gradually  developed  downward 
from  some  ancient  man!  This  shows  how 
utterly  unreliable  is  evolution  as  a scien- 
tific theory. 

7.  — As  all  evolution  or  development  is 
necessarily  upward  toward  the  heteroge- 
neous and  complex,  making  it  impossible 
for  practical  and  useful  organs,  like  teeth 
of  mammals  and  legs  of  quadrupeds,  to  be 
lost  by  survival  of  the  fittest,  it  follows  that 
there  is  but  one  way  in  Nature  for  any 
useful  organ  ever  to  become  atrophied  or 
lost ; and  that  is,  for  the  animal  and  its 
descendants  for  many  generations  to  be  so 
situated  as  to  be  wholly  deprived  of  its  use. 
This  I showed  to  be  illustrated  by  the  cave 
rats  and  fishes,  which,  being  shut  out  from 
the  light  for  many  generations,  had  entirely 
lost  the  use  of  their  eyes,  till  they  had  in 


consequence  become  overgrown  with  a 
membrane.  Dervishes  have  been  known 
to  hold  their  hands  and  arms  perpendicu- 
larly extended  so  long, from  a superstitious 
or  religious  frenzy, that  they  would  entirely 
lose  their  use  and  be  unable  to  change 
their  positions!  So  the  wings  of  certain 
birds  on  isolated  islands,  where  neither 
man  nor  wild  beasts  existed  to  cause  alarm, 
have  been  for  many  generations  so  little 
used  as  to  become  finally  incapable  of 
flight.  In  the  same  way, were  it  possible  to 
sever  the  olfactory  nerve  in  a dog  and  then 
continue  to  do  the  same  with  all  his  lineal 
descendants  as  soon  as  born,  the  sense  of 
smell  would  probably  in  time  become  en- 
tirely obliterated  by  disuse.  But,  as  was 
shown,  this  is  wholly  inapplicable  to  any 
organ  used  even  in  the  slightest  degree,  as 
with  the  tails  of  mammals,  however  unes- 
sential to  their  existence.  Therefore,  the 
utter  impossibility  of  useful  and  essential 
organs,  such  as  teeth  and  legs,  which 
are  necessarily  always  in  use,  becoming 
aborted,  is  at  once  manifest. 

8. — The  argument  next  showed  that 
evolutionists,  in  seizing  these  rudiments 
of  teeth  and  legs,  and  thus  overthrowing 
evolution  by  reversing  its  signification  in 
every  sense  of  the  word,  had  shown  a 
lamentable  want  of  ordinary  business 
shrewdness  in  thus  throwing  away  their 
strongest  and  most  puzzling  facts  of  sci- 
ence, and,  in  truth,  the  only  real  argument 
ever  suggested  by  the  theory  which  would 
seem  to  be  difficult  to  answer.  No  one 
can  deny  the  formidable  nature  of  the  ar- 
gument, had  Darwin  originally  claimed 
that  the  cow  had  descended  from  toothless 
ancestors,  and  that  she  had  ever  since 
been  gradually  developing  teeth,  and 
would,  without  a doubt,  in  time  have 
upper  incisors;  and  then,  had  he  adduced 
as  proof  the  undeniable  fact  that  the  calf 
already  begins  to  show  these  incisors  in 


48g 


The  Problem  cf  Human  Life. 


its  embryonic  condition,  it  is  really  difficult 
to  imagine  what  could  be  said  in  reply! 
He  could  have  also  claimed  with  a flourish 
of  logical  trumpets  that  all  quadrupeds 
had  developed  from  legless  reptiles;  and, 
as  conclusive  confirmation,  could  have  re- 
ferred to  the  boa-constrictor,  which  was 
already  gradually  approaching  the  quad- 
ruped form  under  the  “scrutinizing”  care 
of  natural  selection,  showing  undeveloped 
but  well  defined  leg-bones  in  the  hinder 
portions  of  its  body, which  would  no  doubt 
in  time  be  developed  by  survival  of  the 
fittest,  and  differentiated  into  perfect  legs! 
The  same  position  could  have  been  taken 
in  regard  to  the  embryonic  teeth  and  ru- 
diments of  legs  in  the  whale  tribe.  But 
instead  of  this  bold  and  triumphant  posi- 
tion, the  stupid  inventor  of  “pangenesis” 
threw  away  the  whole  opportunity,  just  as 
he  did  in  that  hypothesis,  called  them 
“aborted  organs,”  and  thus  reversed  evo- 
lution, development,  and  survival  of  the 
fittest,  breaking  down  his  own  theory  of 
descent!  A more  witless  escapade  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  of  being  perpetrated 
by  a sane  writer;  while  it  is  equally  sur- 
prising that  Huxley, Haeckel, and  all  other 
advocates  of  the  theory,  instead  of  discov- 
ering this  fatal  fiasco  of  their  leader,  have 
innocently  followed  in  his  footsteps,  and 
still  continue  to  stamp  out  evolution  by 
claiming  that  the  cow  lost  her  teeth  and 
the  boa-constrictor  its  legs  by  “survival 
of  the  fittest”! 

9. — This  summary  of  the  chapter  brings 
us  to  the  true  explanation  of  these  rudi- 
ments of  organs.  I assumed  them  to  be 
the  result  of  the  mental  impressions  of  the 
mothers  in  the  lineal  chain  of  the  species 
inherited  from  generation  to  generation 
till  the  want  or  anxiety  experienced  by 
the  succeeding  mothers  had  impressed 
itself  upon  the  offspring’s  organism.  To 


sustain  this  view  I referred  to  well  known 
facts  among  breeders,  in  which  the  mare 
marked  her  future  foals  distinctly  from 
her  memory  of  a quagga  by  which  she 
had  formerly  borne  a colt,  and  also  a cow 
which  transferred  to.  her  calf  both  the 
white  and  black  spots  and  the  horns  of  an 
ox  whose  company  she  desired,  though 
neither  she  nor  any  of  her  near  relatives 
had  horns  or  any  black  or  white  in  their 
color.  It  was  further  shown  that  these 
modern  facts  corroborated  scientifically 
the  breeding  exploit  of  Jacob  in  causing 
Laban’s  cattle  to  bear  “ringstraked,  spec- 
kled, and  spotted”  offspring,  and  that 
scientists  were  just  beginning  to  find  out 
what  seemed  to  have  been  well  known 
among  the  ancient  patriarchs.  In  applying 
this  solution  to  the  whale  it  explained  why 
it  alone  of  all  the  fish-mammals  showed 
any  sign  of  leg-bones,  while  no  kind  of 
explanation  can  be  given  by  the  theory 
of  descent.  The  same  was  shown  to  be 
the  fact  with  the  boa-constrictor.  My  so- 
lution clearly  gives  the  reason  why  it  alone 
of  all  the  snake  species  should  have  rudi- 
ments of  legs,  while  evolution  can  not 
even  offer  a guess.  If  the  fact  of  descent 
by  transmutation  from  quadrupeds  is  the 
true  cause  of  whales  and  boa-constrictors 
having  rudiments  of  legs,  I showed  clearly 
that  the  smaller  fish-mammals  and  smaller 
snakes  should  by  all  odds  have  these  rudi- 
ments more  distinctly  defined,  as  they  are 
evidently  a later  degeneracy  from  the 
quadrupedal  form.  The  very  fact  that 
no  advocate  of  evolution  can  give  even  a 
surmise,  according  to  the  theory  of  descent, 
why  whales  among  fish-mammals  and  boa- 
constrictors  among  serpents  should  alone 
have  rudiments  of  legs,  while  my  hypothe- 
sis gives  a clear  and  distinct  scientific  rea- 
son for  both,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  show 
which  is  the  more  probable  theory. 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments . 


481 


Chapter  X. 


EVOLUTION.— ITS  STRONGEST  ARGUMENTS 
EXAMINED. — (Continued. ) 


The  Anatomical  Resemblance  of  all  Vertebrate  Animals  one  of  the  Strong  Supports  of  Evolution.— 
This  Fact  does  not  favor  the  Theory  of  Descent,  but  is  shown  to  be  directly  opposed  to  it. — The  very 
Assumption  of  a Graduated  Scale  of  Structure  the  death-blow  of  Evolution.—  Huxley’s  Book — “ Man’s 
Place  in  Nature” — a Complete  Loss  of  Time  and  Labor. — He  Wastes  a Whole  Volume  on  the  Partial 
Resemblance  of  Men  and  Monkeys  in  their  Osseous  Structure,  when  there  were  dozens  of  Characters 
and  Points  of  Resemblance  exactly  alike  which  he  might  have  used. — Creation  by  a Graduated  Scale 
of  General  Anatomy  Consistent  and  Rational. — Illustrated  by  Man’s  Greatest  Achievements. — If  the 
Graduated  Resemblance  between  Members  of  a Sub-Kingdom — as  between  the  Vertebrates,  for  ex- 
ample— proves  Evolution,  then  the  breaks  between  Sub-Kingdoms  prove  Miraculous  Creation. — The 
Logic  of  Evolution  thus  Breaks  Down  by  its  own  Weight. — The  Acknowledged  Absence  of  all  Transi- 
tional Forms  a Clear  Disproof  of  Evolution  till  they  are  Produced. — Darwin  repeatedly  declares  that 
“Sudden  Leaps”  can  not  be  taken  by  Natural  Selection. — Transmutation  thus  rendered  Impossible  by 
Mr.  Darwin  himself, since  the  differences  between  the  Nearest  Related  Species  constitute  such  “Leaps.” 

— The  Great  Fossil  Lizards  of  Huxley,  as  connecting  links,  examined. — The  Nearest  Related  Species 
shown  still  to  be  Great  and  Sudden  Leaps. — The  Archaeopteryx  no  sort  of  proof  of  Evolution. — Nature 
confirms  this  Distinction,  proving  Separate  Creations  by  the  Law  of  Sterility  among  different  Species. — 
The  Exploits  of  Breeders  and  Fanciers  examined. — Man’s  Efforts  the  Exact  Opposite  of  those  of  Nature. 

— They  Overthrow  the  Claims  of  Evolution  by  producing  Opposite  Results. — Huxley  Clearly  Refutes 
Darwin’s  Theory. — His  own  Self-Destructive  Logic  turned  against  him. — Breeders  acting  on  the  Prin- 
ciples of  Nature  could  never  change  a Feather  of  a Pigeon  in  a Million  Years. — A Conclusive  Proof 
given  from  Mr.  Darwin  himself. — The  Great  Argument  based  on  Paleontology  and  the  Geologic  Record 
examined. — It  is.  Shown  to  furnish  no  Proof  in  Favor  of  Evolution,  but  rather  to  Overthrow  it. — All 
Fossil  Species  are  found  at  their  Greatest  Perfection  when  they  first  appear  in  the  Strata. — The  Paleon- 
tologic  Remains  a Clear  Proof  of  Miraculous  Creation  of  the  Succeeding  Forms. — A Merciless  Review 
of  Professor  Huxley’s  Lectures  in  New  York. — He  is  Shown  to  have  Abandoned  all  Proof  of  Evolution 
in  the  Fossil  Remains  of  Animals  prior  to  the  Genesis  of  Mammals. — His  Great  Argument  based  on  the 
“ History  of  the  Horse”  a Total  Failure. — It  not  only  turns  out  to  be  no  Evidence,  but  is  the  Exact 
Opposite  of  Evolution. — Professor  Huxley’s  “Demonstrative  Evidence  of  Evolution”  demonstrates  its 
Complete  Want  of  Foundation. — His  comparing  the  Basis  of  Evolution  to  that  of  the'Copernican  System 
of  Astronomy  rebuked  as  it  deserves. — The  Preposterous  Character  of  the  Comparison  Exposed. 


Next  to  the  arguments  based  on  Rever- 
sions, Embryology,  and  Rudimentary  Or- 
gans, the  anatomical  resemblance  and 
typical  graduation  of  organic  beings  in 
connection  with  the  geologic  and  paleon- 
tologic  record  constitute  probably  the 
strongest  evidence  in  favor  of  the  gradual 
transmutation  of  the  higher  from  the  lower 
forms  of  animal  life.  I may  also  add  that 
intimately  connected  with  such  anatomical 


graduation  and  the  evidence  drawn  from 
paleontology  comes  in  the  work  of  the 
breeder  and  the  fancier,  showing  supposed 
corresponding  changes  in  structure  pro- 
duced by  methodical  selection. 

But  having  already  shown,  as  I believe 
the  attentive  reader  will  admit,  that  the 
three  first-named  classes  of  phenomena 
and  scientific  facts  not  only  fail  to  sustain 
evolution  in  the  slightest  degree,  but  are 


482 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


directly  opposed  to  the  hypothesis,  it  must 
necessarily  weaken  in  advance  a class  of 
facts  and  evidence  secondary  in  impor- 
tance, such  as  graduation  in  structure  and 
the  fossil  deposits,  even  if  there  were  no 
direct  and  cogent  reasons  by  which  to 
overthrow  such  evidence.  For  if  the  mirac- 
ulous creation  of  a single  species  must  be 
admitted  as  a fact  of  science,  since  it  is  un- 
avoidably necessary  as  the  foundation  and 
start  of  evolution,  so  fully  shown  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  and  as  Mr.  Darwin  is 
obliged  to  admit,  then  there  necessarily 
can  be  no  evidence,  unless  it  consists  of  the 
most  positive  and  direct  kind,  showing  that 
the  Creative  Will  changed  this  order  of 
scientific  facts,  and  adopted  an  entirely 
new  and  different  plan  for  the  origin  of 
species  after  having  created  the  first  one. 

We  can  not  and  have  no  logical  right  to 
shut  our  eyes  on  the  first  organic  species, 
and  say  we  don’t  know  how  that  one  came 
into  existence  but  we  do  know  how  the 
others  came!  We  can  not  be  permitted  to 
accept  sullenly  the  first  species  at  the  hands 
of  the  Creator  as  a miraculous  product  out 
of  inorganic  matter,  as  does  Mr.  Darwin, 
and  then  forever  after  ignore  the  Creator, 
taking  the  work  completely  out  of  His 
hands,  and  running  the  machinery  of  Na- 
ture by  the  flimsy  motive-power  of  a few- 
weak  and  badly  corroborated  inferential 
proofs. 

Mr.  Darwin  does  not  and  can  not  believe 
that  the  first  species  sprang  into  existence 
by  spontaneous  generation  or  out  of  noth- 
ing, with  no  intelligence  to  conceive  nor 
will  to  produce  it.  No  reader  can  believe 
it  after  the  conclusive  evidence  given  to 
the  contrary  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  this 
book.  Hence,  the  first  species,  as  the  basis 
of  evolution,  must  have  come  by  miracu- 
lous creation : and,  therefore,  if  evolution 
is  a scientific  hypothesis  or  theory,  its  foun- 
dation must  be  scientific,  If  its  assumed 


stages  of  development  and  transmutations 
are  facts  of  science,  then  the  fundamental 
act  or  event  on  which  all  these  other  pro- 
cesses depend  is  equally  a fact  of  science. 
This  seems  too  self-evident  and  axiomatic 
a truism  to  require  a moment’s  further 
argument. 

I deny,  then,  that  there  is  the  least  evi- 
dence in  the  gradation  of  animal  forms 
or  their  anatomical  resemblance  in  favor 
of  evolution,  or  going  to  show  in  the  re- 
motest degree  that  one  being  was  trans- 
muted from  another,  but  exactly  the  re- 
verse. The  general  typal  resemblance  of 
all  vertebrate  animals,  from  the  fish  up  to 
man,  becomes  on  the  contrary  one  of  the 
most  logical  and  necessary  proofs  that  one 
and  the  same  infinite  Creator  formed  them 
all  by  the  same  miraculous  power  and 
under  the  same  system  of  formative  laws 
which  produced  the  primordial  species. 

Every  great  w-orker — such  as  an  artist, 
for  example — is  known  and  can  be  at  once 
pointed  out  by  a connoisseur  from  the 
general  resemblance  among  themselves  of 
his  works  of  vertu.  A critic  can  often 
at  a single  glance  designate  the  author  of 
a great  painting  by  this  simple  law  of  gen- 
eral family  resemblance  which  pervades 
and  identifies  every  artist’s  productions, 
how  different  soever  may  be  the  subjects 
of  the  work.  No  artist  thinks  of  changing 
this  family  resemblance  in  his  successive 
achievements  in  art  because  he  happens 
to  change  his  subject  from  a group  of  por- 
traits to  a landscape, or  from  a cattle-scene 
to  a sunset.  He  would  rather, if  he  regards 
his  works  as  meritorious,  study  to  keep  up 
and  cultivate  that  peculiar  and  typical 
something  which  we  may  call  artistic  iden- 
tity, with  such  chiaro-oscuro, which  no  other 
artist  can  exactly  imitate,  as  would  tend 
to  advertise  him,  so  to  speak,  whenever 
one  of  his  works  happened  to  be  examined, 
whether  it  was  labelled  or  not. 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


483 


1 have  often  been  surprised  at  the  stress 
which  evolutionists  lay  on  this  resemblance 
of  all  vertebrate  animals  in  their  osseous 
structure  as  a proof  of  descent  from  a 
common  prototype,  which  again  shows 
their  want'  of  shrewdness  and  business 
tact,  as  so  clearly  illustrated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  They  thus  select  a char- 
acter or  peculiarity  of  structure  which  is 
only  approximately  alike  in  the  different 
species,  when  they  might  have  fixed  upon  a 
dozen  different  characters  in  which  there 
is  an  absolute  and  unvarying  resem- 
blance even  from  the  fish  up  to  man ! 
Professor  Huxley  wrote  an  entire  book — 
Mans  Place  in  Nature — to  demonstrate 
this  approximate  resemblance  in  the  skele- 
tons and  anatomies  of  man  and  the  higher 
apes.  Now,  this  was  all  useless  and  a 
waste  of  precious  time,  if  we  look  at  it 
correctly.  It  would  not  be  Godlike  or 
workmanlike  or  artistlike,  if  such  an  ap- 
proximate resemblance  did  not  exist.  I 
can  admit  all  Professor  Huxley  teaches 
about  the  peculiar  and  striking  similarity 
existing  between  man  and  the  orang- 
outang, both  as  to  their  cerebral  resem- 
blance and  osseous  conformation,  and  yet 
repudiate  his  absurd  conclusion  that  man 
necessarily  descended  from  the  monkey 
by  transmutation,  and  not  only  from  the 
monkey  but  from  the  tortoise  and  crawfish. 

Why,  then.  I repeat,  waste  all  this  valu- 
able time  in  writing  a book  to  demonstrate 
a partial  resemblance  of  organic  structure 
between  all  vertebrate  animals  when  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  could  have  triumphantly 
pointed  to  the  fact  that  all  vertebrates  have 
two  eyes?  Even  a flounder  when  young 
swims  with  its  back  upward,  with  one  eye 
on  each  side  of  its  head,  but  being  so  flat 
it  soon  forms  the  habit  of  swimming  on 
one  side.  The  lower  eye  then  becomes 
useless  in  that  position,  but  so  determined 
is  this  asymmetric  vertebrate  to  keep  up 


I this  universal  character  of  two  eyes,  that 
I the  lower  one  crawls  around  or  goes  di- 
rectly through  the  skull,  and  deliberately 
takes  its  place  by  the  side  of  the  upper 
one ! 

What  a brilliant  argument  Professor 
Huxley  could  have  made  on  such  a persis- 
tent and  invariable  characteristic  as  two 
eyes,  had  he  but  thought  of  it!  Had  he 
applied  to  me  before  writing  his  book,  I 
could  have  furnished  him  with  a whole  list 
of  characters  exactly  alike  in  the  thousands 
of  vertebrate  species,  each  one  of  which 
would  have  been  so  superior  in  proving 
that  man  descended  from  a fish  to  the 
half-rate  resemblance  in  the  backbone, 
phalanges,  and  cerebrum,  and  so  much 
more  convincing,  that  they  should  not  be 
spoken  of  in  the  same  day. 

How  striking  the  resemblance,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  fact  that  all  vertebrates 
breathe , and  that,  too,  with  their  mouths 
and  noses ! They  have  all  five  senses , and 
that , too , exactly  of  the  same  kind; — -all  see 
with  their  eyes,  hear  with  their  ears,  and 
smell  with  their  noses!  What  better  proof 
can  be  asked  for  in  favor  of  a common 
origin  by  transmutation,  or  of  the  probable 
fact  of  a single  primordial  prototype?  Not 
one  vertebrate  species,  so  far  as  natural 
history  informs  us,  sees  with  its  nose,  smells 
with  its  eyes,  or  hears  with  its  mouth,  as 
some  of  them  ought  to  do  if  separate  mirac- 
ulous creations!  Why,  such  an  idea  as  an 
infinite  intelligent  Creator  making  two  sep- 
arate species  with  the  same  number  of 
senses,  and  that,  too,  of  the  same  kind,  is 
preposterous!  Even  the  approximate  re- 
semblance in  the  backbone  is  a clear  evi- 
dence, with  these  great  scientists,  that  an 
intelligent  God  had  nothing  to  do  with 
them!  Just  look  at  the  fact,  Professor 
Huxley,  that  every  one  of  these  thousands 
of  specific  creatures  live  by  eating,  grow 
by  food-assimilation,  and  then  think  of  the 


484 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


startling  resemblance  in  the  fact  that  they 
all  have  veins  and  circulation,  all  come 
into  being  by  birth  and  cease  to  live  by 
dying!  This  does  not  begin  to  fill  out  the 
list  of  absolute  resemblances.  Yet  you 
overlook  all  these  perfect  characters,  which 
would  have  been  so  demonstrably  conclu- 
sive, and  plod  through  Mans  Place  in 
Nature , all  to  prove  what  any  man  can 
admit  without  stirring  a hair  on  his  head, 
believing  still  with  unshaken  confidence 
that  he  is  neither  the  son  of  an  ape  nor 
the  great-grandson  of  a snapping-turtle! 

Even  if  an  infinite  Creator  did  start  each 
separate  species  by  a miraculous  creation, 
there  was  not  the  least  necessity  for  or 
propriety,  in  a separate  general  plan  for 
each  specific  form.  Evolutionists  seem  to 
look  upon  it  as  an  absolute  necessity,  if  a 
God  originated  the  species,  that  there 
should  be  no  two  alike  as  to  general  type, 
— one,  for  example,  should  have  three  eyes 
instead  of  two, — one  should  have  been 
made  with  two  mouths  instead  of  one, — 
some  with  one  ear  in  the  middle  of  the 
forehead, — others  with  one  eye  in  front 
and  another  behind, — one  having  two 
pairs  of  arms,  and  another  two  spinal  col- 
umns, one  in  front  and  the  other  back.  I 
could  easily  go  on  with  the  list,  if  disposed, 
and  suggest  a separate  typal  plan  for  each 
specific  form  throughout  the  vertebrate 
sub-kingdom.  The  Creator  could  have 
done  all  this,  had  such  variety  been  His 
object,  just  as  easily  as  to  follow  the  one 
vertebrate  type.  But  it  shows  really  greater 
artistic  genius  and  more  genuine  wisdom 
in  creating  such  almost  infinite  variety  with 
such  trifling  variation  to  outward  seeming. 
There  would  have  been  no  more  true  genius 
or  workmanship  displayed,  however,  in 
such  meaningless  structural  variations  than 
if  an  artist  in  producing  each  separate 
painting  should  change  pigments  for  the 
same  color,  use  a different  kind  of  canvas 


for  each  picture,  or  mix  each  separate 
color  with  a different  kind  of  oil,  and  then 
apply  them  with  brushes  each  made  of  a 
different  kind  of  hair! 

If  an  intelligent  Creative  Will  really  did 
design  and  then  miraculously  produce  by 
fixed  laws  the  various  specific  forms  from 
the  fish  up  to  man,  is  it  not  every  way  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  a part  of  such  de- 
sign and  original  purpose  might  have  been 
to  advertise  Himself,  by  the  monistic  plan 
of  His  work,  as  the  Author  of  all  organic 
life,  and  thus  to  impress  upon  the  intelligence 
of  His  crowning  work  that  the  same  God 
who  finished  with  man  began  with  the  ver- 
tebrate fish  as  a mode 1 1 Would  not  man 
as  a philosopher — as  an  intelligent  and 
thoughtful  student  of  Nature — do  credit  to 
his  exalted  intellectuality  by  recognizing 
and  comprehending  the  Author  of  his  own 
being  even  in  the  lowest  forms  of  the  ver- 
tebrata,  rather  than  to  make  such  identify- 
ing and  necessary  family  resemblance  a 
pretext  for  robbing  Him  of  the  glory  by 
denying  His  existence,  and  then  claiming 
such  an  orderly,  artistic  graduation,  as  the 
designless  product  of  mindless,  will-less, 
senseless  laws  of  Nature?  The  very  fact 
of  such  graduation  and  general  typical  re- 
semblance in  all  vertebrate  species  thus 
seems  to  me  to  distinctly  favor  and  point 
to  the  miraculous  production  of  each  origi- 
nal specific  form  by  the  one  Creative  Will, 
and  to  be,  as  I will  now  show,  directly  op- 
posed to  the  transmutation  of  the  various 
forms  from  a single  prototype. 

We  see,  for  example,  distinct  and  com- 
plete breaks  in  the  typical  form  of  anatomy 
between  the  mollusca  and  the  articulata 
and  between  the  articulata  and  all  verte- 
brate animals.  According  to  the  hypothesis 
of  miraculous  creations  the  great  Architect 
of  Nature,  working  by  law  and  under  the 
direction  of  infinite  intelligence,  could,  as 
a matter  of  course,  either  work  on  a single 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


485 


typal  plan  and  with  a graduated  scale  of 
family  resemblance,  as  in  the  vertebrata, 
from  the  dawn  of  life  up;  or  He  could,  ii: 
according  to  infinite  pleasure  and  from  a 
love  for  variety  and  the  beautiful,  make 
each  species  from  a separate  typical  model 
and  on  a distinctly  unique  plan,  just  as  well 
as  He  could  originate  one  plan  at  the  start. 
But  natural  selection,  beginning  with  the 
mollusk  and  working  by  the  fixed  law  of 
development  and  transmutation,  would 
naturally  and  necessarily  be  forced  to  keep 
within  the  typal  limit.  Consequently,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  for  transmu- 
tation to  produce  the  abrupt  typical  break 
from  the  mollusk  to  the  crustacean  or  from 
the  crustacean  to  the  vertebrate  form. 

Evolutionists  thus  completely  overthrow 
their  own  principles  of  logic,  and  with  them 
the  whole  argument  based  on  structural 
resemblance.  They  assume  that  the  typi- 
cal similarity  of  all  vertebrate  animals — 
men,  monkeys,  dogs,  marsupials,  seals, 
reptiles,  and  fishes, — is  a proof  of  trans- 
mutation under  natural  selection,  thus  ab- 
solutely assuming  that  such  a process  of 
development  as  evolution  must  necessarily 
keep  within  the  type,  or  otherwise  the 
whole  argument  of  anatomical  resemblance 
falls  to  the  ground,— while  at  the  same 
time  claiming  that  the  crab  was  trans- 
muted from  the  oyster  or  its  typal  form, 
and  that  the  fish  was  transmuted  from 
some  one  of  the  invertebrata!  Now,  it 
comes  right  to  this:  either  natural  selec- 
tion could  not  scale  the  barrier  of  sub- 
kingdoms or  break  over  distant  types,  such 
as  the  leaping  from  the  oyster  to  the  lob- 
ster and  from  the  crab  to  the  ganoid,  or 
else  this  boas  ed  typical  resemblance  of 
vertebrate  animals  is  not  logically  a neces- 
sary work  of  evolution;  for  if  evolution 
can  break  through  types,  disregarding  all 
family  resemblance,  as  it  must  have  done 
to  transmute  the  articulata  from  the  mol- 


lusca  or  the  vertebrata  from  the  articulata, 
then  the  necessity  for  the  typal  form  of  all 
vertebrate  animals  as  the  work  of  natural 
selection  is  wiped  out  at  a single  sweep, 
and  the  great  evolution  argument  based 
on  comparative  anatomy  is  driven  to  the 
wall. 

It  thus  clearly  follows,  by  taking  the 
anatomical  argument  just  as  evolutionists 
present  it,  that  if  the  family  resemblance 
of  all  vertebrate  animals  is  a proof  that 
they  could  not  have  been  formed  by  special 
creations , but  must  have  been  the  work  of 
evolution , then  the  leaps  or  breaks  from 
one  type  of  structure  to  another,  as  just 
shown,  must  have  been  the  works  of  special 
creations , and  could  not  have  been  the  result 
of  evolution!  If  this  logic,  therefore,  of 
Professor  Huxley,  based  on  a graduated 
anatomical  type  among  vertebrate  animals 
is  worth  anything  at  all,  it  completely 
shatters  evolution  by  proving  that  the  dis- 
tinct anatomical  breaks  from  one  type  to 
another  must  have  been  the  work  of  mirac- 
ulous creation, since  the  natural  and  logical 
tendency  of  evolution  is  to  follow  type ! 
If  the  resemblance  among  vertebrates  is 
necessary  evidence  in  favor  of  evolution, 
then  the  leaps  in  defiance  of  such  resem- 
blance between  the  sub-kingdoms  is  neces- 
sary evidence  of  miraculous  interventions! 
If,  to  avoid  this  pulverizing  consequence 
of  miraculous  creations,  Professor  Huxley 
should  assume  that  evolution  can  easily 
leap  the  chasms  between  those  distinct 
types,  transmuting  a shad  out  of  a scylla- 
rian  or  a shrimp  out  of  a strombus,  in  de- 
fiance of  all  typal  graduation,  then  where 
is  there  any  necessary  evidence  that  the 
osseous  resemblance  between  the  man 
and  monkey  is  the  work  of  a principle  or 
law  which  can  just  as  well  make  leaps  as 
not?  Thus,  the  contradictory  logic  of 
evolution  smothers  in  its  own  self-abne- 
gation. 


486 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


The  resemblance,  therefore,  between 
species  of  the  same  genus  and  genera  of 
the  same  family  is  thus  shown  to  be  no 
necessary  evidence  in  favor  of  evolution, 
but  rather  a proof  going  to  show  a unity 
of  design,  and  the  consistent,  harmonious 
plan  of  one  creative  mind,  since  all  workers 
necessarily  maintain  a striking  family  re- 
semblance between  their  different  produc- 
tions of  merit  and  skill.  Mr.  Darwin  can 
see  nothing  of  this  unity  of  plan  and  neces- 
sary creative  graduation  in  the  various  ani- 
mal species,  the  very  thing  he  would  be 
the  first  to  point  out  in  the  different  pro- 
ductions of  any  great  artistic  or  architec- 
tural genius.  Rather  than  to  logically  infer 
that  the  same  Creative  Will  which  designed 
and  modeled  the  first  few  simple  beings 
also  organized  other  species,  he  prefers  to 
suppose  it  the  work  of  natural  selection, 
which  will  soon  be  shown  to  be  incapable 
of  the  first  practical  step  toward  transmu- 
tation. Read  the  following: — 

“Ho \\  inexplicable  is  the  similar  pattern  of  the 
hand  of  a man , the  foot  of  a dog,  the  wing  of  a bat, 
the  flipper  of  a seal,  on  the  doctrine  of  the  inde- 
pendent acts  of  creation!  How  simply  explained 
on  the  principle  of  the  natural  selection  of  successive 
slight  variations  in  the  diverging  descendants  from 
a single  progenitor ! ” 

“ The  similar  framework  of  bones  in  the  hand  of 
a man,  wing  of  a bat,  fin  of  a porpoise,  and  leg  of 
a horse,  . . . and  innumerable  other  facts,  at  once 
explain  themselves  on  the  theory  of  descent  with 
slow  and  slight  successive  modifications.” 

“We  may  further  venture  to  believe  that  the 
several  bones  in  the  limbs  of  the  monkey,  horse, 
and  bat,  were  originally  developed  on  the  principle 
of  utility,  probably  through  the  reduction  of  more 
numerous  bones  [evolution  backward,  again,  ac- 
cording to  Herbert  Spencer,]  in  the  fin  of  some 
ancient  fish-like  progenitor  of  the  whole  class."— 
Origin  of  Species,  pp.  160,  420. — Animals  and 
Plants,  vol.  i.,  p.  23. 

But  Mr.  Darwin  seems  to  be  careful  to 
go  only  half  way  back  to  the  commence- 
ment of  his  supposed  evolution.  Why  don’t 
he  tell  us  to  look  at  the  similarity  between 


| the  hand  of  a man,  wing  of  a bat,  leg  of  a 
horse,  and  body  of  an  oyster , or  the  jellatin- 
ous  organism  of  the  ascidia?  Evolution 
can  account  for  no  such  leaps  of  structure; 
whereas,  if  looked  upon  as  the  intelligent 
work  of  a Creative  Will,  this  graduated 
scale  of  structure  as  well  as  these  infinite 
leaps  in  typical  form  are  at  once  solved  and 
made  to  appear  consistent. 

As  a clear  proof  that  the  most  allied 
species  ever  found  in  a state  of  Nature  are 
not  transmutations  the  one  from  the  other, 
we  have  only  to  note  the  fact  that  in  not  a 
single  instance  have  there  ever  been  found 
the  transitional  links  which  would  have 
necessarily  existed  to  lead  to  such  specific 
difference  in  form,  structure,  and  habits. 
It  is  distinctly  taught  by  Mr.  Darwin  in 
many  places  that  evolution  or  natural  se- 
lection can  make  no  sudden  leaps , but  must 
proceed  in  developing  one  species  from 
another  by  short,  sure,  and  slow  steps: — 

“Natural  selection  acts  only  by  taking  advan- 
tage of  slight  successive  variations.  She  can  never 
take  a great  and  sudden  leap,  but  must  advance  by 
short  and  sure  though  slow  steps.” — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  156. 

Then,  it  follows,  as  there  are  no  two 
species  in  the  world,  and  never  have  been, 
as  proved  by  the  fossil  record,  so  near  to- 
gether that  they  would  not  constitute  “ a 
great  and  sudden  leap,”  it  becomes  the  most 
complete  refutation  of  this  theory  of  trans- 
mutation by  natural  selection,  unless  evo- 
lutionists shall  find  two  species  somewhere 
on  earth  or  embedded  in  the  geologic  strata 
with  their  transitional  forms  composed  of 
such  “ slight  successive  modifications”  and 
such  “ short  and  sure  though  slow  steps” 
as  would  be  possible  to  result  as  the  work 
of  natural  selection.  Such  a thing  has 
never  been  seen,  nor  anything  bearing  the 
least  resemblance  to  such  transitional  grad- 
uations. 

What  clearer  and  more  distinct  over- 


Chav.  X. 


Evolution . — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


487 


throw  of  the  entire  system  of  evolution  can 
the  world  ask  than  this  reiterated  statement 
of  Mr.  Darwin  that  natural  selection  “can 
never  take  a great  and  sudden  leap”  but 
“acts  only  by  taking  advantage  of  slight 
successive  variations”?  No  evolutionist 
thinks  of  doubting  but  that  the  hiatus  be- 
tween two  sub-kingdoms,  such  as  that  be- 
tween the  articulata  and  vertebrata,  even 
after  the  closest  possible  alliance  is  im- 
agined, would  constitute  a “great  and  sud- 
den leap,”  even  greater  than  any  monstros- 
ity ever  heard  of  has  produced.  Mr.Darwin 
thus  gives  up  the  whole  theory  of  transmu- 
tation, by  proclaiming  to  the  world  in  nu- 
merous passages  that  the  “great  and  sudden 
leap”  unavoidably  required  between  two 
distinct  types  of  anatomy  could  never  have 
been  taken  by  natural  selection!  Until, 
therefore,  he  or  Professor  Huxley  shall 
contrive  some  way  of  proving  that  the 
changes  from  a mollusk  to  a crustacean 
and  from  a crustacean  to  a fish  would  not 
constitute  a “great  and  sudden  leap,”  we 
shall  be  obliged  to  regard  the  citadel  of 
evolution  as  voluntarily  surrendered  by  the 
very  engineer  who  built  the  works.  Not 
only  so,  but  in  the  next  chapter  I will  give 
an  unequivocal  demonstration  from  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel,  the  great  German  apostle 
of  evolution,  that  an  articulate  animal  can 
not  by  any  possible  transmutation  change 
to  a vertebrate,  but  that  each  sub-kingdom 
is  unavoidably  and  irrevocably  confined  to 
the  “type  of  its  tribe.”  If  this  is  not  done 
by  unmistakable  citations,  then  the  reader 
has  my  full  permission  to  believe  nothing 
in  this  book. 

Every  now  and  then  we  hear  through 
evolution  sources  of  the  discovery  of  some 
new  animal  which  is  an  absolute  connect- 
ing link  between  certain  species, and  which 
settles  the  question  of  transmutation! 
Now,  I want  to  inform  these  evolution 
sensationalists  once  for  all  that  these  scien- 


tific surprises  are  all — well,  I will  be  mild 
and  call  it  self-deception,  though  it  deserves 
a stronger  epithet.  I have  carefully  fol- 
lowed up  these  “conclusive  proofs  of  evo- 
lution ” for  years,  and,  taking  them  in  their 
most  exaggerated  representations,  they  in- 
variably leave  chasms  on  either  . side  of 
such  new  forms,  or  between  them  and  the 
species  they  are  claimed  to  connect,  so  vast 
that  it  would  take  many  monstrosities  and 
even  thousands  of  such  “slight  variations” 
and  “short”  steps  as  Mr.  Darwin  teaches 
to  form  the  most  rickety  bridge  from  one 
to  the  other.  One  of  the  most  astounding 
recent  discoveries  is  the  archaopteryx, 
claimed  with  a great  flourish  of  evolution 
trumpets  to  be  the  true  connecting  link 
between  birds  and  reptiles.  Yet  it  is  so 
different  from  a true  bird  and  so  far  re- 
moved from  a genuine  reptile  that  it  would 
require  a number  of  well  developed  mon- 
strosities to  make  the  connection  either 
way,  to  say  nothing  of  the  almost  infinite 
number  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  “slight  successive 
modifications,” — the  only  way  natural  se- 
lection is  supposed  to  work. 

Now,  if  there  never  had  been  such  a 
connecting  link  between  the  form  of  the 
reptile  and  the  bird  as  the  archaeopteryx, 
or  between  the  bird  and  the  mammal  as 
the  cheiropter,  I would  say  unhesitatingly 
there  surely  ought  to  have  been,  and  that 
the  work  of  the  Creator  was  incomplete, 
and  altogether  unlike  the  conception  we 
would  naturally  form  of  true  artistic  work- 
manship in  the  graduation  of  the  verte- 
brate type.  As  weak  an  artificer  and  as 
poor  an  inventor  as  I am,  I can  conceive 
of  scores  of  organic  beings  which  might 
have  naturally  and  consistently  formed 
legitimate  connecting  links  between  many 
genera,  orders,  and  classes,  which  at  pres- 
ent exhibit  “great  and  sudden  leaps,”  hav- 
ing chasms  out  of  due  artistic  proportion 
to  the  sliding  scale  of  structure  and  family 


488 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


resemblance  at  other  points  of  the  gradua- 
tion. I can  easily  conceive,  for  example, 
of  a compound  species,  with  the  head  and 
forked  tongue  of  the  serpent,  the  scales 
and  fins  of  the  fish,  the  wings  and  quills 
of  a bird,  and  the  mammae  and  tail  of  the 
wolf.  The  Creative  Will  may  have  formed 
many  such  connecting  links  and  compound 
species,  which  have  disappeared  from  the 
earth.  Evolutionists,  therefore,  will  not 
surprise  as  much  as  they  will  gratify  me 
by  increasing  the  number  of  these  ana- 
tomical links,  since  in  so  doing  they  will 
but  expand  the  evidence  that  the  entire 
graduated  scale  of  organic  being  was  the 
monistic  work  of  one  great  Creative  Mind 
rather  than  the  purposeless  achievement  of 
a mindless  and  will-less  force  of  Nature. 

The  truth  is,  the  archceopteryx  is  but 
another  species  of  another  distinct  genus, 
ranking  as  a separate  order  if  not  a distinct 
class  of  animals,  as  much  so  as  the  bat.  It 
is  therefore  nonsense  for  a naturalist  to 
speak  of  some  newly  discovered  animal, 
living  or  fossilized,  sufficiently  distinct 
from  all  known  species  to  be  ranked  as  a 
separate  genus,  order,  or  class,  being  a 
“ connecting  link"  in  any  sense  meant  by 
evolution. 

Professor  Huxley  thinks  there  once  lived 
a being  which  maybe  called  a man-ape  or 
the  speechless  man,  which  connected  the 
quadrumana  with  the  human  form,  and 
evolutionists  are  just  now  extremely  anx- 
ious to  unearth  this  “connecting  link  ” from 
some  gravel-bank  or  cave-deposit,  thinking 
thereby  to  settle  the  pedigree  of  man  as  a 
lineal  descendant  of  the  monkey.  But  I 
will  here  assure  them,  and  save  Professor 
Huxley  and  his  coadjutors  a good  deal  of 
doubtful  digging,  that  when  they  have 
found  this  man-ape  they  will  have  only 
discovered  an  additional  genus  or  family 
of  animals  which  the  Allwise  Artist  and 
Architect  of  Nature  saw  fit  to  construct  as 


another — possibly  the  final — experimental 
model,  before  finishing  His  work  in  the 
creation  of  His  own  image  and  likeness.  I 
therefore  admit  this  man-ape  in  advance, 
and  make  this  suggestion  out  of  pure  kind- 
ness, to  save  these  naturalists  the  trouble 
of  any  further  excavation. 

As  an  unanswerable  proof  that  species 
were  separate  creations  and  not  the  work 
of  evolution,  we  have  only  to  look  at  the 
well  known  fact  that  Nature  has  drawn 
an  indelible  line  of  demarkation  between 
them.  However  nearly  allied  they  may 
be  in  the  scale  of  creative  graduation,  or 
however  much  they  may  resemble  each 
other  in  the  form  and  outline  of  their 
anatomy,  they  can  not  hybridize  and  thus 
produce  between  them  a single  new  spe- 
cies,— notwithstanding,  if  Darwinism  be 
true,  there  must  have  been  a thousand  dif- 
ferent gradations  called  varieties  in  the 
course  of  Nature  between  two  of  the  most 
intimately  blended  species! 

By  methodical  selection  and  careful  sep- 
aration of  peculiarly  marked  and  diverging 
offspring  a species  may  be  greatly  changed 
in  form  and  appearance,  as  seen  in  the 
various  breeds  of  pigeons,  such  as  pouters, 
carriers,  tumblers,  fantails,  &c.,  and  in  the 
beautiful  forms  of  swine,  sheep,  and  cattle. 
But  it  is  a well  known  fact  among  breeders 
and  fanciers  that  all  such  varieties  are  as 
fertile  among  each  other  or  with  the  nor- 
mal form  of  the  species  as  the  normal  in- 
dividuals are  among  themselves.  In  fact, 
it  is  often  the  case  that  such  methodically 
selected  breeds  are  actually  improved  in 
fertility. 

How  different  it  is  in  the  coerced  min- 
gling of  Nature’s  true  species  by  man’s  in- 
tervention. A single  cross  may  be  effected, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  mule  or  hinny,  but 
such  hybrids  are  perfectly  sterile,  both 
among  themselves  and  with  the  parent 
forms.  Could  a breed  of  mules  be  pro- 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


489 


duced  which  would  hybridize,  as  is  the 
ease  with  the  numberless  artificial  breeds 
of  cattle,  pigeons,  &c.,  then  a true  connect- 
ing link  between  two  of  Nature’s  species 
would  for  the  first  time  be  found. 

In  a state  of  Nature,  or  beyond  man’s 
control,  no  such  attempt  at  hybridization 
ever  occurs  or  would  be  made  between  the 
most  nearly  allied  species,  such  as  the  wild 
ass  and  the  zebra  or  the  zebra  and  quagga, 
even  were  they  to  run  in  herds  together; 
and  thus  Nature  herself  has  erected  a 
double  wall  of  separation  between  all  spe- 
cies, showing  that  there  never  could  have 
existed  numberless  grades  of  connecting 
links  between  them,  as  must  have  been 
the  case  under  the  slight  successive  steps 
of  natural  selection  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win, or  else  such  transitional  links  could 
be  reproduced  by  hybridization. 

Until,  therefore,  breeders  shall  produce 
such  varieties  by  methodical  selection  as 
shall  show  some  indications  of  sterility 
(the  exact  opposite  of  the  result  so  far),  or 
else  produce  a fertile  species  of  hybrids, 
Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  of  descent  by  adapta- 
tion is  not  only  not  aided  in  the  least  by 
the  remarkable  exploits  of  the  breeder, 
but  his  assumption  of  the  possible  trans- 
mutation of  species  is  absolutely  dis- 
proved. 

Professor  Huxley  himself  declares  that 
if  it  can  be  shown  that  such  sterility  can 
not  be  produced  between  breeds  artificially 
selected,  “ I hold  that  Mr.  Darwin's  hy- 
pothesis would  be  utterly  shattered.” — (On 
the  Origin  of  Species,  p.  141.)  If,  there- 
fore, we  may  judge  from  the  past,  which 
shows  no  tendency  to  sterility  among  the 
most  divergent  artificial  breeds,  but,  in 
many  cases, right  the  opposite, or  increased 
fertility,  we  may  logically  declare  that 
Professor  Huxley’s  condition  is  already 
fairly  complied  with,  judging  from  the 
preponderance  of  evidence,  and  that  “Mr. 


Darwin’s  hypothesis,”  therefore,  is  “utterly 
shattered.”  At  all  events,  evolutionists 
have  to  assume  that  the  future  will  pro- 
duce results  in  artificial  breeding  the  exact 
opposite  of  the  last  hundred  years, in  order 
to  give  the  least  basis  to  Mr.  Darwin’s 
theory. 

I therefore  declare,  by  the  authority  of 
Professor  Huxley,  that  Mr.  Darwin’s  hy- 
pothesis remains  “utterly  shattered”  until 
such  time  as  he  or  his  coadjutors  shall 
produce  the  result  stipulated,  namely,  the 
sterility  of  artificially  produced  breeds 
among  themselves  and  crossed  with  the 
normal  form,  thus  making  them  to  re- 
semble natural  species. 

Professor  Huxley  ought  to  be,  however, 
too  good  a logician  to  insist  on  us  proving 
a negative , as  he  here  does  when  he  savs: 
“if  it  could  be  proved,  not  only  that  this 
has  not  been  done  but  that  it  can  not  be  done 
...  I hold  that  Mr.  Darwin’s  hypothesis 
would  be  utterly  shattered.”  This  looks 
very  much  as  if  the  Professor  wanted  to 
make  it  as  unnecessarily  difficult  as  pos- 
sible for  the  opponents  of  evolution!  Why 
does  he  stipulate  so  carefully  about  11s 
proving  “that  this  has  not  been  done,"  when 
Mr.  Darwin  and  all  evolution  authorities, 
including  Professor  Huxley  himself, admit 
' that  such  a thing  as  a sterile  breed  has 
never  been  artificially  produced?  He 
might,  then,  show  himself  a candid  oppo- 
nent, and  oblige  us  by  leaving  out  that 
part  of  the  contract!  It  is  childish  to  ask 
us  to  prove  what  he  already  admits  as  a 
fact!  As  to  the  other  part  of  his  stipula- 
tion, that  is,  for  us  to  prove  “that  it  can 
not  be  donef  I must  insist  that  it  smacks  a 
good  deal  of  the  absurd.  I can  not  prove, 
and  it  is  not  supposed  to  be  my  place  to 
prove,  but  that  Mr.  Darwin  or  his  lineal 
descendants  may  some  time  or  other  suc- 
ceed in  turning  a pigeon  inside  out,  and 
still  making  it  breed;  and  it  is  not  my 


490 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


business  to  undertake  to  establish  this 
negative!  Should  he.  base  a great  revo- 
lutionary scientific  theory  upon  such  an 
absolutely  preposterous  assumption,  Prof. 
Huxley  ought  to  know,  and  I think  does 
know,  that  it  would  be  exclusively  Mr. 
Darwin’s  business  to  prove  it,  or  else  his 
“hypothesis  would  be  utterly  shattered ” 
till  he  did! 

Evolutionists  have  somehow  or  other 
secured  a reputation  for  candor,  and  square 
logical  argument;  but  I deny  that  this 
reputation  has  been  justly  earned,  judg- 
ing from  the  above  specimen.  Professor 
Huxley  would  laugh  at  an  opponent  who 
professed  to  believe  in  miracles,  but  who, 
after  admitting  that  no  miracle  had  ever 
yet  been  performed,  should  then  ask  the 
Professor  to  prove  “that  it  has  not  been 
done’’!  or  who  would  gravely  concede  that 
his  belief  in  the  possibility  of  a miracle 
“would  be  utterly  shattered”  if  Professor 
Huxley  would  only  prove  “that  it  can  not 
be  done”!  I guarantee  that  this  great 
anatomist  would  read  his  opponent  a brief 
lecture  on  the  elements  of  logic  by  inform- 
ing him  that  since  he  had  admitted  that  a 
miracle  had  never  been  performed,  it  was 
but  a fair  presumption  that  such  a thing 
could  not  occur;  and  that  instead  of  ask- 
ing an  unbeliever  in  supernatural  interven- 
tion to  prove  miracles  impossible,  it  was 
his  business1  to  assume  the  onus probandi , 
and  prove  that  a result  could  occur  in  the 
future  which  he  admitted  had  never  taken 
place  in  the  past, — ending  with  the  em- 
phatic suggestion  that  his  hypothesis  of 
miraculous  intervention  must  necessarily 
remain  “shattered”  unconditionally,  till 
such  proof  was  produced!  Are  we  not, 
then,  fairly  justified  in  proclaiming  to  the 
’world, on  the  testimony  and  by  the  author- 
ity of  Professor  Huxley,  since  all  evolu- 
tionists admit  that  a sterile  species  or 
variety  has  never  been  produced  artifi- 


cially, that  “ Mr.  Darwin’s  hypothesis ' is 
now , will  be  to-morrow , and  must  remain 
forever  “utterly  shattered,”  unless  such 
proof  of  sterility  is  forthcoming? 

I will  not  waste  a long  argument  on  the 
achievements  of  the  breeder  and  the  fan- 
cier, the  importance  of  which  has  been  so 
often  and  so  much  exaggerated  in  support 
of  evolution.  No  man  knows  better  than 
Mr.  Darwin  that  the  pigeon-fancier  could 
not  make  the  least  improvement  in  the 
form  or  color  of  a dovecote  pigeon  except 
by  first  noticing  some  slight  chance  varia- 
tion from  the  normal  color  or  form,  which 
might  happen  to  occur,  and  then  separat- 
ing and  breeding  from  that  individual  and 
its  descendants  having  the  same  peculiar- 
ity, and  thus  exaggerating  that  peculiar 
character,  whatever  it  might  be,  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  by  constantly  sepa- 
rating and  breeding  from  such  individuals 
as  possessed  it  in  the  most  marked  degree. 

Should  a fancier  act  on  the  principle 
and  plan  of  Nature,  according  to  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s law  of  natural  selection,  and  preserve 
only  the  hardiest,  strongest,  or  ablest- 
bodied  pigeons,  paying  no  attention  to  any 
casual  peculiar  form  of  beak,  head,  crop, 
or  tail,  leaving  all  the  species  to  cross  and 
freely  intermingle  with  the  bare  exception 
of  following  natural  selection  and  weeding 
out  the  weak  and  puny  individuals  just  as 
survival  of  the  fittest  is  supposed  to  do,  he 
would  never  succeed  in  producing  the 
slightest  difference  in  the  present  form  and 
appearance  of  the  pigeon,  if  he  and  his 
successors  should  follow  this  course  for  a 
million  generations!  Mr.  Darwin  and  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  both  know  this  statement  to 
be  literally  true.  Can  any  one  be  so  de- 
void of  reason  or  so  blinded  by  the  theory 
of  evolution  as  to  suppose  that  a succes- 
sion of  even  a million  fanciers,  working 
twenty-five  years  apiece,  commencing  with 
our  common  dovecote  pigeons  and  treating 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


49 1 


them  exactly  as  Nature  treats  her  species, 
in  preserving  only  the  fittest,  the  strongest, 
and  the  ablest-bodied,  subjecting  them  at 
the  same  time  to  every  conceivable  variety 
of  conditions,  could  produce  a tumbler, 
carrier,  pouter,  or  fantail,  or  the  slightest 
change  in  form  or  color?  If  not,  is  it  not 
the  clearest  demonstration  that  Nature, 
acting  on  the  same  plan  precisely,  could 
never  have  transmuted  the  wild-rock 
pigeon  into  our  common  dovecote?  Yet 
evolution  teaches  that  natural  selection — 
with  no  intelligence,  prevision,  choice,  or 
judgment,  without  the  power  of  separation, 
and  with  no  means  of  preventing  free  in- 
tercrossing, can  not  only  do  what  a million 
intelligent  men  working  in  succession  could 
not  do,  but  is  entirely  competent  to  trans- 
mute a pigeon  into  a hawk,  a robbin  into 
a goose,  or  a sparrow  into  an  eagle! 

Mr.  Darwin  admits  that  under  Nature 
the  dovecote  pigeon  has  not  undergone  the 
least  change  for  thousands  of  years,  exist- 
ing as  it  has  in  all  varieties  of  climate  from 
the  far  north  and  south  to  the  equator. 
He  says: — 

“Dovecote  pigeons  have  remained  unaltered 
from  time  immemorial." — Animals  and  Plants,  vol. 
i.,  p.  270. 

Now,  if  dovecote  pigeons,  living  under 
the  greatest  diversity  of  conditions  and 
climate,  feeding  upon  all  varieties  of  food, 
possessing  an  organization  more  susceptible 
of  variation  or  liable  to  undergo  change 
than  any  known  animal,  shall  still  remain 
“unaltered  from  time  immemorial,”  pray 
how  long  would  it  probably  take  to  change 
a blue  rock-pigeon  into  a dovecote,  with 
no  more  diversified  conditions  or  environ- 
ments, to  say  nothing  about  the  transmuta- 
tion of  the  thousands  of  species,  genera, 
families,  and  orders  of  biids,  ranging  from 
the  smallest  of  the  trochilidae  up  to  the 
ostrich,  from  some  kind  of  a reptile  ? The 
mere  propounding  of  such  a question,  in 


connection  with  the  fact  just  quoted  from 
Mr.  Darwin,  is  sufficient  to  show  the  prac- 
tical impossibility  of  transmutation  under 
natural  selection.  If  no  change  has  been 
produced  in  the  dovecote  pigeon  for  five 
thousand  years,  under  the  most  favorable 
situations  and  conditions  for  divergence, 
it  is  but  fair  to  assert  that  under  natural 
selection  no  change  has  ever  been  pro- 
duced since  this  species  was  originally 
created.  If  Mr.  Darwin  admits,  as  he 
does,  that  a species  with  the  most  sensi- 
tively varying  organism  can  thus  have  ex- 
isted under  the  greatest  variety  of  con- 
ditions and  environments  for  five  thousand 
years,  or  “ from  time  immemorial,”  with- 
out the  least  change,  it  completely  over- 
throws the  hypothesis  of  specific  transmu- 
tation, until  such  time  as  positive  proof 
shall  be  adduced  going  to  show  beyond  a 
peradventure  where  some  one  species  has 
been  transmuted  into  another. 

Another  fact,  before  leaving  this  point, 
must  not  be  overlooked  in  this  estimate 
of  the  dovecote  pigeon.  Tens  of  thousands 
of  fancy  and  peculiar  artificially  bred 
pigeons  have  been  constantly  escaping, 
from  time  to  time,  from  the  aviaries  of  the 
rich  and  noble  of  all  lands  and  through- 
out all  historic  ages,  mingling  with  the 
normal  dovecotes,  as  every  man  will  admit 
who  is  conversant  with  the  subject, — and 
thus  adding  the  impetus  of  their  already 
partially  divergent  structures  to  any  ten- 
dency which  might  exist  among  dovecotes 
toward  forming  a new  breed,  thus  proving 
that  no  such  a tendency  exists  in  Nature 
or  ever  has  existed!  It  rather  demon- 
strates that  the  tendency  is  exactly  the 
opposite,  since  not  the  slightest  remnant 
of  such  artificial'  forms  can  be  traced 
among  present  pigeons. 

There  is  not  the  least  doubt,  from  the 
facts  here  hinted,  if  a thousand  of  the 
most  perfectly  bred  carriers  and  a thou- 


492 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


sand  pure  fantails  were  let  loose  in  a vil- 
lage where  there  was  an  equal  number  of 
dovecotes,  that  not  a vestige  of  the  tail  of 
the  one  or  the  beak  of  the  other  would  be 
visible  in  their  descendants  even  in  ten 
years  after  they  were  free  to  intermingle. 
Thus,  the  direct  tendency  of  every  ab- 
normal form  in  a species  is  to  revert  to 
the  normal  type,  which  is  the  exact  oppo- 
site of  evolution,  and  a flat  contradiction 
of  the  possibility  of  transmutation. 

If  it  be  a law,  as  I have  here  stated,  that 
an  abnormal  divergence  in  a species  tends 
to  revert  to  the  normal  form  instead  of 
tending  to  perpetuate  itself,  then  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s assumption  of  a tendency  toward 
transmutation  would  be  to  suppose  two 
laws  of  Nature  acting  in  direct  contradic- 
tion of  each  other,  which  is  utterly  impos- 
sible. Hence,  the  overthrow  of  the  trans- 
mutation of  species  is  clearly  established 
by  the  natural  tendency  of  all  abnormities 
to  subside  into  the  normal  type  after  a few 
generations.  Evolution  does  not  and  can 
not  exist  as  a law  of  Nature  if  this  ten- 
dency to  revert  to  the  normal  type  be  true, 
since  the  two  tendencies  are  in  absolute 
conflict. 

I shall  therefore  leave  the  exploits  of  the 
fancier  and  breeder  and  the  result  of  their 
efforts  at  methodical  selection,  with  the 
simple  remark  that  all  such  achievements 
are  necessarily  confined  to  specific  limita- 
tions,— never  have  transcended  and  never 
can  overstep  the  boundary  of  a species, — 
and,  can  exist  no  longer  than  the  careful 
efforts  of  the  breeder  and  fancier  continue; 
and  that  all  argument  based  thereon  sup- 
posed to  favor  evolution  results  from  an 
erroneous  conception  of  Nature  and  her 
laws. 

I now  invite  the  reader  to  the  argument 
based  on  paleontology  and  the  geologic 
record.  I have  no  controversy  with  evolu- 
tionists in  regard  to  the  age  of  the  earth,  or 


the  mode  in  which  the  superimposed  strata 
of  the  geologic  formations  were  produced. 
Neither  shall  I enter  into  the  discussion  of 
Genesis  or  the  signification  of  the  creative 
“days”  of  Moses.  I am  willing  to  take 
any  view  of  the  geologic  order,  gradation, 
and  succession  of  species,  which  best  suits 
evolutionists,  and  will  undertake  to  show 
from  the  paleontologic  argument,  placed 
in  its  strongest  light,  that  it  positively  and 
logically  contradicts  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  evolution,  and  absolutely  over- 
throws the  system. 

It  has  just  been  shown  that  the  gradua- 
tion in  the  anatomy  of  the  various  verte- 
brate species,  forming  an  inclined  plane  or 
sliding  scale  of  structure,  was  directly  in 
favor  of  the  intelligent  miraculous  produc- 
tion of  each  specific  form,  while  it  was 
also  shown  to  be  entirely  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  natural  selection,  since  such  a 
law  can  make  no  leaps  such  as  those  which 
would  have  necessarily  occurred  between 
typal  forms.  Hence,  as  the  miraculous 
creation  of  the  various  species  has  been 
proved  to  have  a scientific  basis,  in  the 
necessary  creation  of  one  species,  and 
since  such  miraculous  intervention  is 
clearly  established  as  the  only  logical  or 
rational  process  supposable  in  accounting 
for  the  alternate  breaks  and  graduations 
from  the  moneron  up  to  man,  there  is  noth- 
ing at  all,  therefore,  inconsistent  with  di- 
vine wisdom  or  infinite  intelligence  in  the 
supposition  that  the  creation  of  species 
should  have  taken  place  at  different  epochs 
of  the  earth’s  history,  beginning  with  the 
lower  forms  of  sponges,  polyps,  mollusks, 
and  so  on  upward  as  the  earth’s  crust  be- 
came suited  for  more  highly  organized 
beings. 

The  enormous  intervals  of  time  supposed 
to  have  elapsed  between  the  origin  of  one 
and  another  of  those  lower  forms  of  life, 
or  between  the  deposition  of  the  strata 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


493 


containing  them,  though  they  seem  im- 
mense to  us,  are  as  but  a watch  of  the 
night  when  it  is  past  to  the  all-seeing  eye 
of  Him  whose  self-existent  duration  is 
from  eternity  to  eternity. 

At  however  remote  a period  those  lower 
forms  of  life  were  originally  produced,  and 
in  whatever  geologic  deposits  their  remains 
are  now  found,  there  is  one  great  and  cen- 
tral truth  pervading  the  entire  history  of 
fossils  which  no  evolutionist  will  dispute, 
and  that  is,  that  all  such  species  at  their 
genesis  or  first  appearance  in  any  geologic 
formation,  are  as  perfectly  developed  and 
as  highly  organized  as  they  are  ever  after- 
ward found  in  subsequently  deposited 
strata.  For  example,  the  earliest  fish — 
the  ganoid — found  in  the  lowest  geologic 
deposits  of  the  Devonian  age,  was  as  per- 
fectly formed  and  as  highly  organized  as 
our  present  species  of  ganoids — the  gars 
and  sturgeons.  At  the  earliest  appearance 
of  every  species  in  the  history  of  the  earth’s 
crust,  the  remains  are  found  not  only  as 
highly  organized  and  as  perfectly  differen- 
tiated as  they  ever  afterward  occur,  but  in 
most  cases  they  are  more  completely  de- 
veloped and  of  larger  and  more  powerful 
organization  than  they  are  ever  found  to 
be  in  subsequent  geologic  strata,  so  that 
degeneration  is  the  rule  rather  than  trans- 
mutation to  higher  organisms. 

How  clearly,  then,  does  the  fact  that 
all  species  at  their  genesis  on  earth  are  at 
their  best  go  to  show  their  origin  by  direct 
creation ! How  demonstrably  does  it  assert 
that  species  could  not  have  come  by  grad- 
ual development  from  lower  forms  of  be- 
ing, since  not  a scintilla  of  such  evidence 
can  be  found  in  the  geologic  record  in  the 
form  of  proper  transitional  developments! 
Is  it  at  all  likely  that  the  thousands  of  fos- 
sil species  which  have  been  found  in  the 
rocks,  and  the  same  species  which  have 
been  subsequently  traced  in  hundreds  of 


instances  in  succeeding  orders  of  strata, 
should  all,  without  exception,  appear  at 
their  best  at  the  start,  if  they  came  into 
being  as  evolution  teaches?  If  evolution- 
ists could  name  a single  paleontologic  fact 
as  strong  in  favor  of  the  transmutation  of 
the  higher  specific  forms  from  the  lower  as 
is  this  well  authenticated  fact  which  points 
so  unmistakably  to  the  miraculous  creation 
of  each  species,  they  might  well  assert,  as 
did  Professor  Huxley  in  his  recent  course 
of  lectures  in  New  York,  that  the  fossil 
record  furnishes  “demonstrative  evidence” 
of  such  transmutation  of  species. 

The  assumption  of  evolutionists  that  the 
graduated  scale  shown  in  the  anatomical 
structures  of  organic  beings  is  in  favor  of 
transmutation  and  opposed  to  miraculous 
creations  has  been  fully  refuted  in  the 
early  part  of  this  chapter,  and  such  grada- 
tion of  structure  has  been  made  clearly 
to  point  toward  creative  plan  and  intelli- 
gence. Hence,  logically, the  successive  first 
appearance  of  different  species  following 
each  other  from  the  lower  toward  the 
higher  in  the  geologic  formations  could 
have  as  easily  resulted  from  creation  by 
infinite  intelligence,  in  six  epochs  or  ages, 
as  to  have  been  formed  in  six  literal  days, 
or  all  at  one  fiat.  These  facts,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  entire  absence  of  any 
transitional  forms  between  species  which 
would  not  each  constitute  a “ great  and  sud- 
den leap,”  surpassing  any  known  monstros- 
ity,with  that  other  fact  that  all  species  are 
at  their  greatest  perfection  at  their  genesis, 
must  show  the  wild  and  reckless  character 
of  Professor  Huxley’s  assertion  that  any 
such  graduation  could  constitute  “demon- 
strative evidence  of  evolution,”  or  even 
proof  of  the  weakest  circumstantial  char- 
acter. 

To  make  it  “demonstrative  evidence  of 
evolution,”  it  should  be  shown  that  species 
could  not  possibly  have  come  into  exist- 


494 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


ence  in  any  other  way,  whereas  everybody 
knows  they  could  have  come  by  miracu- 
lous creation,  and  most  probably  did  so 
come,  since  Mr.  Darwin  admits  the  first 
species  to  have  thus  originated!  Professor 
Huxley,  even,  admitted  in  his  New  York 
lectures  that  these  species  of  the  ’hippus 
might  have  been  created  by  direct  inter- 
position of  miraculous  power,  though  he  is 
careful  to  add  that  such  an  hypothesis 
would  not  be  “scientific”!  Who  cares 
whether  it  is  scientific  or  not?  If  there  is 
another  possible  way  foi  them  to  have 
originated,  then  evolution  utterly  falls 
short  of  a demonstration.  Can  not  this 
great  logical  scientific  lecturer  see  this? 

While  Professor  Huxley  admitted  in  the 
lectures  just  referred  to  that  the  earlier 
fossil  remains  of  animals,  such  as  those 
mammoth  lizards, did  not  prove  evolution, 
owing  to  the  want  of  transitional  forms 
connecting  them,  he  consoled  himself  and 
his  friends  with  the  belief  that  they  did 
not  disprove  it,  since,  if  evolution  were 
true,  such  gradation  of  forms  should  exist, 
and  that  owing  to  the  “imperfection  of  the 
geologic  record,”  the  breaks  between  these 
species  had  to  be  filled  by  imaginary  num- 
berless transitional  forms  which  have  never 
been  found.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to 
admit  that  the  fossil  remains  of  the  great 
flying  lizards  such  as  the  pterodactyl, 
and  other  enormous  creatures  such  as  the 
ichthyosauria,plesiosauria,compsognath  us, 
&c.,  were  not  direct  proofs  of  evolution, 
since  they  do  not  occur  in  successive  se- 
ries of  deposits  corresponding  with  their 
gradation  of  specific  structure.  I will 
quote  his  language, so  the  reader  need  not 
take  my  paraphrase  of  it.  He  says: — 

“If  we  take  the  particular  case  of  reptiles  and 
birds,  upon  which  I dwelt  at  length,  we  find  in  the 
mesozoic  rocks  animals  which,  if  ranged  in  series, 
would  so  completely  bridge  over  the  interval  be- 
tween the  reptile  and  the  bird  that  it  would  be 
hard  to  say  where  the  reptile  ends  and  where  the 


bird  begins.  Evidence  so  distinctly  favorable  a? 
this  of  evolution  is  far  weightier  than  that  upon 
which  men  undertake  to  say  that  they  believe  many 
important  propositions;  but  it  is  not  the  highest 
kind  of  evidence  attained,  for  this  reason,  that,  as 
it  happens  the  intermediate  forms  to  which  I have : 
referred  do  not  occur  in  the  exact  order  in  which 
they  ought  to  occur  if  they  really  had  formed  steps 
in  the  progression  from  the  reptile  to  the  bird;  that 
is  to  say,  we  find  these  forms  in  contemporaneous 
deposits,  whereas  the  requirements  of  the  demon- 
strative evidence  of  evolution  demand  that  we  should 
find  the  series  of  gradations  between  one  group  of 
animals  and  another  in  such  order  as  they  must 
have  followed  if  they  had  constituted  a succession 
of  stages  in  time  of  the  development  of  the  form 
at  which  they  ultimately  arrive.  That  is  to  say, 
the  complete  evidence  of  the  evolution  of  the  bird 
from  the  reptile — what  I call  the  demonstrative 
evidence,  because  it  is  the  highest  form  of  this  class 
of  evidence  ; that  evidence  should  be  of  this  char- 
acter, that  in  some  ancient  formation  reptiles  alone 
should  be  found;  in  some  later  formations  birds 
should  first  be  met  with,  and  in  the  intermediate 
forms  we  should  discover  in  regular  succession 
forms  which  I pointed  out  to  you  which  are  inter- 
mediate between  the  reptiles  and  the  birds.” 

This  seems  to  be  a frank  statement,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  a very  damaging  one  to 
the  theory  which  the  lecturer  was  laboring 
to  support.  He  practically  admits  that  all 
animals  found  fossilized  prior  to  the  gene- 
sis of  mammals  have  occurred  so  irregu- 
larly and  indiscriminately  in  the  various 
strata  that  they  fail  to  keep  up  the  proper 
succession  required  by  evolution  or  the 
demands  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  law  of  transmu- 
tation. Hence,  according  to  Professor 
Huxley’s  own  admission,  this  part  of  the 
fossil  record,  or  the  formations  prior  to  the 
appearance  of  mammals,  amounts  to  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  favor  of  evolution  so  far 
as  direct  proof  is  concerned.  In  addition 
to  this  damaging  state  of  the  geologic  re- 
cord, the  great  fact  to  which  I have  before 
referred  here  stands  out  in  bold  relief — 
that  etery  one  of  these  separate  petrefac- 
tions  is  so  distinctly  marked  off  and  so  radi- 
cally different  from  the  one  on  either  side, 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


495 


with  which  it  is  supposed  to  connect,  as  to 
form  a “great  and  sudden  leap,”  which 
Mr.  Darwin  says  natural  selection  never 
can  take. 

Professor  Haeckel  agrees  with  Professor 
Huxley  that  the  geologic  record,  so  far  as 
relates  to  the  regular  occurrence  of  fossil 
reptiles,  is  all  confusion  and  utterly  inex- 
plicable,according  to  the  demands  of  evo- 
lution : — ■ 

“The  four  extinct  orders  of  reptiles  show  among 
one  another  and  with  the  four  existing  orders  just 
mentioned  such  various  and  complicated  relation- 
ships that  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  we 
are  obliged  to  give  up  the  attempt  at  establishing 
their  pedigree." — Haeckel,  History  of  Creation, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  225. 

In  reading  such  confused  attempts  to 
solve  the  complex  problems  of  the  exist- 
ence of  animal  species  by  means  of  the 
inconsistent  principles  and  impossible  de- 
mands of  evolution,  one  sometimes  feels 
disposed  to  sympathize  with  rather  than 
to  severely  criticise  these  learned  profes- 
sors. It  is  really  a pity  to  see  them  bat- 
tling with  such  contradictions  and  irrecon- 
cilable problems,  when  the  simple  and 
beautifully  consistent  admission  of  a God 
as  the  intelligent  Cause  and  Author  of  all 
things  would  at  once  dissipate  their  diffi- 
culties, no  matter  how  confusedly  “ the 
four  extinct  orders  of  reptiles  show  among 
one  another . . . such  various  and  cotnplicatcd 
relationships.  ’ ’ 

I assert,  as  before  intimated,  that  no 
two  fossil  species,  how  much  soever  they 
may  be  mixed  up  or  in  what  manner  they 
may  be  blended  in  the  strata,  have  ever 
been  found  so  near  together  in  form 
but  that  it  would  require  several  well  de- 
fined monstrosities  to  bridge  the  chasm 
between  them,  and  that  it  would  be  so  re- 
garded by  any  naturalist  should  such  a 
break  happen  to  occur  between  the  off- 
spring of  any  of  our  present  species.  Mr. 
Darwin  repeatedly  says  that  it  is  impos- 


sible for  natural  selection  to  produce  any 
such  result.  Besides  this,  each  one  of 
those  fossil  lizards  referred  to  by  Professor 
Huxley  and  Professor  Haeckel  are  at  iheir 
greatest  perfection  when  found  in  the 
lowest  strata  containing  their  remains. 
Why  should  this  always  occur  if  transmu- 
tation be  Nature’s  process  for  the  origina- 
tion of  species? 

It  is  therefore  clear,  by  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Darwin,  that  natural  selection 
could  not  have  produced  the  most  nearly 
related  fossil  species  by  transmutation, 
without  numberless  slight  successive  tran- 
sitional forms  which  do  not  exist  and  have 
never  been  found  in  a single  instance, 
while  it  is  admitted  "by  Professor  Huxley 
that  these  supposed  connecting  links  be- 
tween classes  which  he  describes  do  not 
occur  in  the  proper  succession,  geologic- 
ally speaking,  to  constitute  direct  proof. 

Thus,  after  the  lecturer  had  made  suf- 
ficient concessions  to  practically  surrender 
and  absolutely  wipe  out  the  whole  geologic 
record  as  direct  proof  of  evolution  up  to 
the  genesis  of  mammals,  and  in  connection 
with  Mr.  Darwin’s  admissions  to  establish 
beyond  all  question  the  miraculous  origin 
of  all  earlier  species,  he  finally  brings  his 
audience  to  what  he  calls  his  “demonstra- 
tive evidence  of  evolution,”  and  that  class 
of  evidence  which  he  declares  “rests  upon 
exactly  as  secure  a foundation  as  the  Copcr- 
nican  theory  of  the  motions  of  the  heavenly 
bodies" '! 

I wish  to  say  to  the  reader  right  here 
that  in  meeting  the  geologic  argument 
based  on  the  graduated  succession  of  fossil 
remains,  which  many  evolutionists  con- 
sider the  strongest  class  of  facts  in  favor 
of  the  theory  of  descent,  it  becomes  neces- 
sary that  the  very  strongest  and  most  de- 
monstrative class  of  evidence  should  be 
examined.  I have  neither  time  nor  space 
to  take  up  all  the  cases  of  fossil  graduation. 


496 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


and  such  a systematized  review  is  wholly 
unnecessary.  If  the  strongest  and  most 
representative  class  of  facts  can  be  shown 
not  only  not  to  favor  evolution  but  to  be 
directly  and  absolutely  opposed  to  it,  then 
it  is  useless  to  waste  the  reader’s  time  on 
the  weaker  or  less  important  classes  of 
facts. 

Such  an  authoritative  presentation,  em- 
bodying the  very  strongest  case  of  “demon- 
strative evidence  of  evolution,”  was  natu- 
rally spread  out  before  the  great  New  York 
audience  by  Professor  Huxley  last  Septem- 
ber, in  his  first  course  of  lectures  in  this 
country,  when  he  knew  that  the  eyes  and 
ears  of  all  America  were  concentrated 
upon  him.  It  is  wholly  unsupposable,  if 
there  is  such  a thing  as  conclusive  proof 
in  favor  of  evolution,  that  Professor  Hux- 
ley would  not  on  such  an  important  occa- 
sion have  presented  it;  and  the  fact  that 
he  selected  the  paleontologic  argument  as 
the  especial  branch  of  evidence,  and  the 
“history  of  the  horse”  as  the  particular 
class  of  facts  suited  for  that  great  event, 
proves  that  he  regarded  them  as  paramount 
in  point  of  conclusiveness  to  all  others  at 
his  command.  Hence,  if  the  “ history  of 
the  horse”  shall  be  clearly  and  conclusively 
wrenched  from  the  Professor’s  hands,  and 
turned  with  crushing  effect  against  evolu- 
tion, and  thus  made  to  favor  the  hypothe- 
sis of  creation  as  the  work  of  an  infinite 
Intelligence,  the  reader  will  hardly  care 
to  go  any  further  in  search  of  evidence  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Let  us  now  examine  this  wonderful  class 
of  evidence,  so  “demonstrative”  that  it 
places  evolution  “upon  exactly  as  secure 
a foundation  as  the  Copernican  theory” 
of  astronomy  rests  on,  and  the  only  class 
of  facts  which  Professor.  Huxley  deemed  it 
prudent  to  settle  down  on  as  “demonstra- 
tive evidence  of  evolution,”  in  the  pres- 
ence of  his  great  New  York  audience.  It 


consists  simply  in  the  fossil  remains  of  five 
different  species  of  animals  somewhat  re- 
sembling our  common  horse,  and  which 
are  assumed  by  evolutionists  to  have  been 
successively  transmuted,  the  later  from  the 
earlier  forms,  and  all  of  which  constituted 
the  early  progenitors  of  the  present  horse. 
Now,  so  far  from  this  class  of  facts  being 
“demonstrative  evidence  of  evolution,”  I 
undertake  to  say  that  it  is  no  evidence  at 
all, — not  even  the  weakest  kind  of  circum- 
stantial evidence, — and  that,  when  care- 
fully examined,  this  succession  of  animal 
forms  will  absolutely  prove  to  be  the  very 
strongest  evidence  against  evolution  which 
any  opponent  of  the  theory  can  desire.  I 
trust  the  reader  will  fully  agree  with  this 
opinion  before  the  argument  is  concluded. 

The  names  given  to  these  fossil  animals 
in  their  order,  as  claimed,  from  the  pres- 
ent horse  downward,  are  the  Pliohippus, 
Protohippus,  Miohippus,  Mesohippus,  and 
Orohippus.  The  first  in  this  list  has  a foot 
nearly  like  the  hoof  of  our  horse ; the  sec- 
ond has  three  fairly  developed  toes;  the 
third  has  three  toes  more  distinctly  differ- 
entiated; and  the  fourth  and  fifth  still 
more  so, — the  last  having  four  toes  in 
front  and  three  behind  to  each  foot.  I will 
here  let  Professor  Huxley,  in  his  own 
words,  draw  his  sweeping  conclusion  after 
reaching  this  earliest  fossil  animal  called 
the  Orohippus: — 

“But  this  is  probably  the  most  important  dis- 
covery of  all — the  Orohippus — which  comes  from 
the  oldest  part  of  the  eocene  formation,  and  is  the 
oldest  one  known.  Here  we  have  the  four  toes  on 
the  front  limb  complete,  three  toes  on  the  hind 
limb  complete,  a well  developed  ulna,  a well  de- 
veloped fibula,  and  the  teeth  of  simple  pattern. 
So  you  are  able,  thanks  to  these  great  researches, 
to  show  that,  so  far  as  present  knowledge  extends, 
the  history  of  the  horse  type  is  exactly  and  precisely 
that  which  could  have  been  predicted  from  a know- 
ledge of  the  principles  of  evolution.  And  the  know- 
ledge we  now  possess  justifies  us  completely  in  the 
anticipation  that  when  the  still  lower  eocene  de- 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


497 


posits  and  those  which  belong  to  the  cretaceous 
epoch  have  yielded  up  their  remains  of  equine 
animals,  we  shall  find  first  an  equine  creature  with 
four  toes  in  front  and  a rudiment  of  the  thumb. 
Then,  probably,  a rudiment  of  the  fifth  toe  will  be 
gradually  supplied,  until  we  come  to  the  five-toed 
animals,  in  which  most  assuredly  the  whole  series 
took  its  origin.  That  is  what  I mean,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  by  demonstrative  evidence  of  evolution. 
An  inductive  hypothesis  is  said  to  be  demonstrated 
when  the  facts  are  shown  to  be  in  entire  accordance 
with  it.  If  that  is  not  scientific  proof,  there  are  no 
inductive  conclusions  which  can  be  said  to  be  scien- 
tific. And  the  doctrine  of  evolution  at  the  present 
time  rests  upon  exactly  as  secure  a foundation  as 
the  Copernican  theory  of  the  motions  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies.  Its  basis  is  precisely  of  the  same 
character — the  coincidence  of  the  observed  facts 
with  theoretical  requirements.” 

Here,  then,  we  have  what  may  be  justly 
styled  the  strongest  and  most  demonstra- 
tive proof  of  transmutation  of  species  which 
the  believers  in  that  hypothesis  have  to 
present;  or,  as  Professor  Huxley  expresses 
it  in  the  citation  just  made,  “ exactly  and 
precisely  that  which  could  have  been  pre- 
dicted from  a knowledge  of  the  principles  of 
evolution."  Yet,  as  strange  as  it  may  seem 
to  the  reader,  it  flatly  contradicts  every 
known  principle  of  evolution,  as  I now 
proceed  to  demonstrate. 

If  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  page  445, 
he  will  see  the  true  and  universally  ac- 
cepted definition  of  “evolution”  as  given 
by  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Spencer.  The 
latter  distinctly  and  repeatedly  declares 
that  all  evolution  or  development  signifies 
a change  from  the  homogeneous  to  the  he- 
terogeneous, from  the  simple  to  the  complex , 
from  the  few  parts  to  the  multiplication  of 
parts.  Instead  of  this  “demonstrative  evi- 
dence ” furnished  by  Professor  Huxley  in 
the  history  of  the  horse  genus  correspond- 
ing with  these  “principles  of  evolution”  as 
laid  down  by  Herbert  Spencer,  the  lecturer 
deliberately  ignores  both  the  intelligence 
of  his  auditors  and  the  accepted  definition 
of  words,  and  assures  his  hearers  that  so 


far  from  evolution  meaning  a change  from 
the  homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous  it 
consists  in  a change  from  the  four-toed 
orohippus  to  the  uni-ungulata,  or  to  the 
homogeneous  hoof  of  the  horse.  Instead 
of  evolution  being,  as  Spencer  teaches,  a 
change  from  the  simple  to  the  complex, 
Professor  Huxley  asserts  it  to  be  a change 
from  the  complex  toes  of  the  orohippus  to 
the  simple  undifferentiated  club-foot  of  the 
horse.  Instead  of  evolution  signifying  a 
change  from  the  few  parts  to  the  multipli- 
cation of  parts,  as  this  greatest  authority 
on  the  principles  of  evolution  asserts,  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  in  defiance  of  the  received 
definitions  of  words,  assures  his  audience 
that  evolution  is  a change  from  the  multi- 
plication of  parts  to  the  single  part! 

Thus,  the  overwhelmingly  ‘ ‘ demonstrative 
evidetice  of  evolution ,”  which  “rests  upon 
exactly  as  secure  a foundation  as  the  Coper- 
nican theory  of  the  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,”  turns  out  to  be  just  no 
evidence  at  all, — while,  at  the  same  time, 
it  flatly  contradicts  all  the  ideas  and  “prin- 
ciples of  evolution,”  and  ignores  its  true 
definition  as  acknowledged  by  the  whole 
world!  Was  there  ever  a more  signal  and 
pitiable  collapse  of  an  argument  before  an 
intelligent  audience? 

Look  at  the  facts,  as  Professor  Huxley 
and  Mr.  Darwin  both  teach,  in  regard  to 
the  theory  of  descent  by  transmutation. 
All  mammals,  including  the  horse  and  the 
monkey,  developed  from  the  marsupial,  the 
earliest  mammiferous  form,  by  evolution. 
Some  ancient  opossum  or  kangaroo  must 
have  divaricated  into  two  lineal  branches 
— one  evolving , according  to  Mr.  Darwin, 
toward  the  monkey;  and  the  other,  accord- 
ing to  Professor  Huxley,  toward  the  horse. 
The  branch  leading  toward  the  monkey 
evolved  by  having  its  fingers  and  toes  still 
more  and  more  differentiated,  till  they  were 
brought  by  evolution  to  perfection  in  the 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


498 


quadrumana,  or  till  they  were  gradually 
developed  from  the  simple  to  the  complex 
and  from  the  homogeneous  to  the  hetero- 
geneous,— while  the  branch  leading  toward 
the  horse  had  its  fingers  and  toes  gradually 
taken  away  by  evolution,  or  changed  from 
the  complex  to  the  simple  and  from  the 
heterogeneous  to  the  homogeneous!  Which, 
now,  Professor  Huxley,  must  we  under- 
stand to  be  the  evolution  and  the  develop- 
ment, — the  process  leading  toward  the 
monkey,  which  cultivated  the  fingers  and 
toes  of  the  marsupial  and  improved  upon 
their  differentiation, or  the  process  leading 
toward  the  horse,  which  reduced  them 
more  and  more,  and  finally  took  them  en- 
tirely away?  Both  surely  can  not  be  evo- 
lution, and  it  requires  very  little  intelli- 
gence to  answer  the  question  and  to  deter- 
mine on  which  side  this  startling  “demon- 
strative evidence  of  evolution’’  is  forced 
to  take  its  stand.  Professor  Huxley’s  lec- 
tures are  thus  utterly  broken  down  by  a 
simple  comprehension  of  the  meaning  of 
the  words  he  employs. 

His  “demonstrative  evidence  of  evolu- 
tion” turns  out  to  be  about  as  serious  a 
joke  as  was  the  sermon  of  the  illiterate 
minister  who  took  for  his  text  the  words — 
“I  knew  thou  art  an  austere  man.”  He 
mistook  the  word  “austere”  and  read  the 
passage — “I  knew  thou  art  an  oyster- man.” 
The  upshot  was,  his  congregation  was 
treated  to  a dissertation  on  the  manner  of 
laying  out  and  planting  oyster-beds,  the 
various  means  employed  for  designating 
their  localities,  and  the  danger  of  an  in- 
competent harvester  raking  in  the  wrong 
beds,  and  thus  reaping  where  he  had  not 
sown  and  gathering  where  he  had  not 
strewn  ! 

Professor  Huxley  gave  his  New  York 
audience  almost  a perfect  duplicate  of  this 
sermon.  He  took  for  his  text  the  “history 
of  the  horse,”  and  fastened  upon  the  word 


“evolution,”  applying  it  to  the  supposed 
transformation  of  the  orohippus,  with  four 
perfect  toes,  into  a horse,  with  no  toes  at 
all, — and  thus,  to  the  amusement  of  the 
reflecting  portion  of  his  congregation,  he 
showed  a complete  misunderstanding  of 
the  leading  word  in  his  text,  making  it 
teach  the  exact  opposite  of  its  true  signifi- 
cation all  the  way  through ! Instead  of 
selecting  “evolution,”  he  should  have 
chosen  the  word  “deterioration”  or  “re- 
trogression,” since  those  words  convey  the 
exact  idea  he  was  trying  to  develop.  While 
aiming  to  prove  that  the  orohippus,  with 
four  distinctly  developed  and  highly  dif- 
ferentiated toes, had  gradually  degenerated 
into  the  horse,  with  a single,  homogeneous, 
undifferentiated,  clumsy  hoof,  he  inno- 
cently supposed,  and  so  did  some  of  his 
congregation  who  happened  to  be  no  better 
posted  than  the  Professor,  that  this  going 
backward  was  development, — this  retro- 
gression was  survival  of  the  fittest, — and 
this  degeneracy  was  evolution  ! He  then 
wound  up,  as  I have  quoted"  “That  is 
what  I mean,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  by 
demonstrative  evidence  of  evolution"!  In 
precisely  the  same  manner  the  minister 
closed  his  sermon:  “That  is  what  is  meant 
in  the  text,  brethren  and  sisters,  by  an 
oyster-man"  ! 

It  will  not  do  to  assume,  in  order  to 
escape  this  difficulty,  that  the  horse’s  feet 
were  degenerated  toward  homogeneity 
from  the  four-toed  orohippus,  to  improve 
the  speed  or  endurance  of  the  animal, 
since  the  leopard  or  the  antelope  is  swifter 
than  the  horse,  while  a team  of  Esquimau 
dogs  will  do  more  work  and  travel  farther 
on  a less  quantity  of  food  in  proportion  to 
their  size  than  any  horse-team  in  the  world. 
Besides, how  are  evolutionists  able  to  know 
but  that  the  orohippus  was  far  swifter  and 
of  greater  endurance  than  the  present 
horse?  There  is  nothing  in  a clumsy  hoof 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


499 


which  necessarily  adds  either  to  speed  or 
endurance. 

Professor  Huxley  will  hardly  assume 
that  the  foot  of  the  horse  was  gradually 
changed  from  the  complex  toes  of  the 
orohippus  into  its  present  form  of  a hoof, 
to  subserve  a useful  purpose  and  add  to 
the  happiness  of  man.  A believer  in  God’s 
providence  and  in  an  intelligent  Creative 
Will  can  easily  admit  that  the  horse,  hoofs 
and  all,  was  a special  creation,  intended 
principally  for  man’s  good.  But  a believer 
in  a primordial  atom  of  protoplasm  as  all 
the  God  there  was  in  the  universe  to  origi- 
nate not  only  the  horse  but  all  other  or- 
ganisms, including  man,  and  who  denies 
the  existence  of  any  primeval  intelligence, 
plan,  or  purpose,  in  the  infinite  diversity 
of  design,  use,  and  ingenious  adaptation, 
seen  everywhere  in  Nature,  will  hardly 
step  beyond  the  blind,  mindless,  and  sense- 
less purview  of  evolution, — which,  had  it 
worked  at  all  on  the  orohippus,  must  have 
taken  its  already  differentiated  toes  for- 
ward toward  the  feet  of  the  monkey  in- 
stead of  backward  toward  the  hoofs  of  the 
horse.  Whenever  Professor  Huxley  shall 
give  a particle  of  proof  that  an  orohippus 
or  any  other  toed  animal  can  by  any  pos- 
sibility or  any  imaginable  consistency  have 
its  toes  aborted  while  constantly  using 
them,  he  may  then,  and  not  till  then,  em- 
ploy the  word  “evolution”  as  synonymous 
with  degeneracy  or  retrogression. 

By  thus  summarily  wrenching  the  “his- 
tory of  the  horse”  from  the  possession  of 
Professor  Huxley,  we  are  again  squarely 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  important 
and  irresistible  fact,  as  taught  so  many 
times  and  so  distinctly  by  Mr.  Darwin  in 
defining  the  office  of  natural  selection, 
that  it  can  not  work  by  taking  sudden 
leaps  or  by  preserving  monstrosities  at  all, 
— which,  should  they  occur,  would  be  lost 
and  obliterated  by  intercrossing  (see  pp. 


394,  395);  but  that  it  must  proceed  by 
“ short  and  sure  though  slow  steps,”  and 
by  “slight  successive  variations”! 

Now,  who  does  not  know  that  the 
change,  for  example,  from  the  four-toed 
orohippus  to  the  three-toed  mesohippus 
would  necessarily  have  constituted  a mon- 
strosity or  a “great  and  sudden  leap,”  had 
it  occurred  in  any  species  at  the  present 
time,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  marked 
differences  between  these  two  forms  of 
’hippus?  Who  can  not  see  that  the  change 
from  the  three  distinct  toes  of  the  plio- 
. hippus  to  the  homogeneous  hoof  of  our 
horse  would  have  constituted  a “great  and 
sudden  leap”  never  heard  of  in  a mon- 
strosity which  could  be  perpetuated? 

The  assumption  of  both  Darwin  and 
Huxley  that  there  were  numerous  tran- 
sitional forms  dividing  up  this  “great  and 
sudden  leap”  from  one  of  these  species  to 
another  amounts  to  nothing.  It  is  a mere 
hypothetic  guess  to  obviate  a difficulty. 
Such  transitional  forms  have  never  been 
found,  and  until  they  are  found  it  is  a 
mere  imaginary  assumption,  no  better  than 
any  other  guess,  as  will  in  a moment  be 
conclusively  proved  by  Mr.  Darwin.  We 
have  only  to  deal  with  the  facts  as  they 
are  discovered,  and  every  such  fact  so  far 
brought  to  light  constitutes  but  another 
“great  and  sudden  leap”  like  the  archaeop- 
teryx, which  Mr.  Darwin  says  could  not 
have  been  produced  by  natural  selection 
without  the  hundreds  of  slight  transitional 
steps  leading  from  one  to  the  other,  which 
have  never  in  a single  instance  been 
brought  to  the  surface. 

Hence,  as  the  interval  between  any  two 
species  yet  discovered,  either  fossil  or  liv- 
ing, constitutes  a “great  and  sudden  leap,” 
which  natural  selection  could  not  have 
taken  without  many  transitional  interven- 
ing forms  which  have  never  been  found, 
it  conclusively  ^"nwc  Jl  - ■*'  - 


500 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life . 


theory  of  evolution  rests  upon  something 
which  does  not  now  exist  in  Nature;  and 
which,  judging  from  the  geologic  and  pal- 
eontologic  records,  never  has  existed,  and, 
as  seen  by  the  efforts  of  breeders  and  fan- 
ciers, never  can  be  made  to  exist.  What 
a baseless,  foundationless  thing,  then,  is 
the  theory  of  modern  evolution!  What  a 
shallow  scientific  hypothesis  on  which  to 
build  a great  revolutionary  doctrine,  to  as- 
sume that  because  species  have  a general 
anatomical  resemblance  they  must  have 
come  by  transmutation  the  one  from  the 
other,  while  admitting  that  natural  selec- 
tion could  not  possibly  have  taken  the 
“leaps”  necessary  to  form  them!  And, 
finally,  how  absurd  to  deny  their  creation 
by  infinite  power  and  wisdom,  because 
they  have  just  such  a family  resemblance 
as  would  constitute  one  of  the  strongest 
arguments  in  favor  of  such  monistic 
origin ! 

But  Mr.  Darwin  is  himself  the  strongest 
witness  against  Professor  Huxley’s  “de- 
monstrative evidence  of  evolution”  drawn 
from  this  so-called  “history  of  he  horse.” 
I assert,  on  the  authority  of  the  founder  of 
modern  evolution,  that  Professor  Huxley 
has  not  one  particle  of  evidence  or  reason 
for  believing  that  one  of  these  ’hippus 
species  was  derived  from  another,  and  that 
no  such  evidence  can  exist  without  the  “ in- 
termediate links”  connecting  them.  I will 
now  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this  startling 
assertion  by  Mr.  Darwin’s  own  words.  If 
I do  so,  without  the  least  perversion  of  his 
language,  then  away  goes  Professor  Hux- 
ley’s demonstration!  Here  is  the  fatal 
passage : — 

“ We  should  not  be  able  to  recognize  a species  [such 
as  the  orohippus\  as  the  parent  of  another  and  modi- 
fied species  [the  mesohippus ] if  we  were  to  examine 
the  two  ever  so  closely , unless  we  possessed  most  of 
the  intermediate  links;  and  owing  to  the  imperfec- 
tion of  the  geological  record  we  have  no  just  right 
to  expect  to  find  so  many  links.” — “Although  geo- 


' logical  research  has  undoubtedly  revealed  the  for- 
mer existence  of  many  links,  bringing  numerous 
forms  of  life  much  closer  together,  it  does  not  yield 
! the  infinitely  many  fine  gradations  between  past  and 
present  species  required  on  the  theory;  and  this  is 
the  most  obvious  of  the  many  objections  which  may 
be  urged  against  it.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species, 
p.  408. 

Here  the  whole  bottom  falls  out  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley’s  “demonstrative  evidence 
of  evolution,”  drawn  from  these  five  grad- 
uated species  resembling  the  horse.  No 
paraphrase  of  mine  can  possibly  render  the 
words  of  Mr.  Darwin  more  directly  appli- 
cable to  the  case  in  hand,  or  more  crush- 
ingly  conclusive  against  Professor  Huxley’s 
“demonstrative”  failure. 

Had  Mr.  Darwin  been  an  opponent  of 
evolution,  and  had  he  been  making  a di- 
rect reply  to  Professor  Huxley’s  position, 
that  the  five  species  of  ’hippus  “demon- 
strably” proved  that  the  later  were  de- 
veloped from  the  earlier  forms,  he  could 
not  have  used  language  more  to  the  point 
or  which  would  have  more  flatly  contra- 
dicted the  Professor’s  assumption.  Or  had 
some  one  risen  in  the  audience  at  the  close 
of  his  great  New  York  lecture  and  read 
this  single  passage  from  Mr.  Darwin’s 
book,  it  would  have  effectually  and  beau- 
tifully pricked  the  enormous  bubble  which 
had  been  so  arrogantly  inflated  and  pro- 
nounced equal  in  point  of  conclusiveness 
to  the  “Copernican  theory  of  the  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies”!  Neither  Profes- 
sor Huxley  nor  any  one  else  could  have 
made  the  least  reply  to  these  words:  “ We 
should  not  l>e  able  to  recognize  a species  [oro- 
hippus]  as  the  parent  of  another  and  modi- 
fied species  [mesohippus]  if  we  were  to  ex- 
amine the  two  ever  so  closely , unless  we  pos- 
sessed most  of  the  intermediate  links” ! Yet 
Professor  Huxley,  in  the  presence  of  his 
New  York  audience,  after  a mere  cursory 
examination  of  these  two  forms,  without 
the  presence  of  one  of  the  transitional  links 


Chai\  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


5or 


which  Mr.  Darwin  designates  as“the/«yf- 
nitely  many  fine  gradations”  connecting 
them,  declares  the  one  to  be  the  progenitor 
of  the  other,  and  that  the  fact  is  thereby 
so  “demonstrably”  established  as  to  be 
equal  in  certainty  to  the  Copernican  sys- 
tem of  astronomy!  If  there  had  been  a 
schoolboy  in  that  audience  ten  years  old 
who  could  not  have  overthrown  this  whole 
“demonstrative  evidence  of  evolution” 
with  this  single  quotation  from  Mr.  Dar- 
win, he  ought,  as  a just  punishment  for 
his  stupidity,  to  be  compelled  to  attend  a 
lecture  of  Professor  Huxley  once  a year 
during  his  natural  lifetime! 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  these  distinct 
species,  which  Mr.  Darwin  so  emphatically 
declares  can  not  constitute  the  least  proof 
that  one  was  the  progenitor  of  another 
“if  we  were  to  examine  the  two  ever  so  closely , 
unless  we  possessed  most  of  the  intermediate 
links,”  which  everybody  knows  have  never 
been  found,  are  spread  out  by  Professor 
Huxley  before  his  New  York  audience, 
without  even  claiming  that  s*tch  “infinitely 
many  fine  gradations”  ever  existed,  and 
then  are  proclaimed  in  a triumphant  and 
eloquently  worded  peroration  to  be  “de- 
monstrative evidence  of  evolution  ” resting 
upon  “ exactly  as  secure  a foundation  as  the 
Copernican  theory  of  the  ?notions  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies” ! Yet  Professor  Huxley  knows, 
and  so  does  every  tyro  in  science,  that  the 
Copernican  system  of  astronomy  is  so  cer- 
tainly established  that  hundreds  of  ascer- 
tained and  universally  admitted  facts  could 
not  exist  at  all  if  that  system  were  not  mathe- 
matically true!  Where  is  there  one  single 
known  fact  which  depends  for  its  existence 
on  the  truth  of  evolution?  We  have  only 
to  look  at  this  startling  and  unpardonable 
assertion  to  be  able  to  properly  estimate 
all  the  other  statements  made  during  these 
remarkable  lectures. 

If  Professor  Huxley  does  not  know,  he 


surely  ought  to,  that  no  proposition  was 
ever  demonstrably  proved  which  admitted 
of  another  and  exactly  opposite  interpre- 
tation, much  less  is  a proposition  demon- 
strated when  the  only  evidence  in  support 
of  it  is  based  on  a mere  inference,  which 
is  compelled  absolutely  and  flatly  to  con- 
tradict the  meaning  of  the  words  employed 
in  the  solution  to  afford  such  proposition 
any  kind  of  support,  as  is  the  case  with 
Professor  Huxley’s  great  demonstration! 
Whereas,  the  Copernican  system  of  astron- 
omy admits  of  no  other  conceivable  ex- 
planation since  the  solar  system  has  been 
surveyed  by  means  of  the  telescope,  while 
hundreds  of  astronomical  and  mathemati- 
cally demonstrated  facts,  as  just  remarked, 
prohibit  any  other  imaginable  interpreta- 
tion. A more  absurdly  perverse  and  reck- 
less statement  than  this  of  Professor  Hux- 
ley, in  comparing  the  scientific  basis  of 
evolution,  as  shown  by  the  “history  of  the 
horse,”  to  that  of  the  Copernican  system 
of  astronomy,  was  never  made  by  a scien- 
tist having  the  least  reputation  for  accuracy 
of  judgment.  How  an  intelligent  audience, 
composed  of  scientific  and  learned  men, 
could  sit  by  quietly  and  hear  such  a mon- 
strous and  transparent  fallacy  proclaimed 
to  the  world  without  rebuking  it  on  the 
spot  is  more  than  I can  see.  Had  I been 
present  I feel  convinced  that  I could  not 
have  restrained  myself  from  publicly  de- 
nouncing such  a statement  as  scientific 
blasphemy ! As  I was  not  present,  I take 
the  liberty  of  doing  so  on  this  page,  here 
and  now;  and  with  it,  of  expressing  the 
deliberate  opinion  that  a scientist  as  well 
informed  as  Professor  Huxley  must  be, who 
can  write  out  and  then  read  to  a great  au- 
dience such  a statement,  in  defiance  of  the 
laws  of  logic  and  the  facts  of  science,  just- 
ly forfeits  the  confidence  of  the  world  till 
such  time  as  he  shall  publicly  renounce  it. 
For  it  has  been  shown  by  the  highest  au- 


502 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


thority  that  if  the  horse  came  from  the  1 
orohippus  at  all,  it  must  have  come  by 
some  principle  or  process  the  exact  opposite 
of  evolution!  Hence,  the  reader  can  ap- 
preciate “the  marvelous  flexibility  of  lan- 
guage” which  admits  of  such  an  interpre- 
tation, as  well  as  the  marvelous  audacity 
and  reckless  disregard  of  the  received 
meaning  of  words  in  a great  lecturer  who 
would  thus  assert  publicly  and  premedi- 
tatedly  that  evolution , resting  upon  facts, 
which,  if  they  exist  at  all,  prove  exactly 
the  opposite,  is  thus  based  on  as  sure  a 
foundation  as  the  present  mathematical 
system  of  astronomy!  Such  a case  of  either 
scientific  effrontery  or  ignorance,  or  both 
combined,  has  never  before  been  witnessed 
in  this  city.  It  would  almost  seem  that 
Professor  Tyndall  had  Professor  Huxley 
in  his  eye  when  he  said: — 

“The  desire  to  establish  or  avoid  a certain  result 
can  so  warp  the  mind  as  to  destroy  its  power  of  esti- 
mating facts.” — Fragments  of  Science,  p.  47. 

Unless  Professor  Huxley’s  intellect  was 
absolutely  warped  to  mental  blindness  by 
his  anxiety  to  sustain  evolution,  he  must 
have  known  better  than  to  assert  that 
there  existed  the  slightest  comparison  be- 
tween the  character  of  evolution  as  a de- 
monstrated theory  and  that  of  our  present 
system  of  astronomy.  Whenever  the  Pro- 
fessor can  take  up  the  principles  of  his 
evolution  hypothesis  and  figure  back  thou- 
sands upon  thousands  of  generations,  and 
point  out  the  exact  time  when  and  process 
by  which,  in  all  its  details,  the  orohippus 
lost  its  fourth  toe  and  commenced  to 
change  into  the  mesohippus  with  but  three 
toes,  and  tell  exactly  how  long  the  change 
was  in  being  effected,  then,  and  not  till 
then,  can  he  dare  to  assert  that  evolution 
“rests  upon  exactly  as  secure  a foundation 
as  the  Copernican  theory  of  the  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies.”  The  advocate 
of  the  Copernican  theory  can  go  back 


tens  of  thousands  of  years,  or  even  to  the 
time  of  the  orohippus,  and  tell  to  a single 
minute  when  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  or 
moon  commenced  or  ended;  and  he  can 
then  figure  forward,  under  the  rules  and 
principles  laid  down  byCopernicus, Kepler, 
and  Newton,  to  the  far-distant  future,  and 
record  with  mathematical  certainty  the 
precise  minute  when  Venus  shall  begin 
its  ten-thousandth  transit  from  the  one 
recently  witnessed! 

What  inscrutable  assurance,  then,  in  a 
scientist  asserting  in  the  face  of  such 
mathematical  facts  as  these  that  the  evo- 
lution of  the  horse,  by  its  degeneracy  from 
a more  highly  organized  and  differentiated 
animal,  is  as  demonstrably  established  as  the 
Copernican  system  of  astronomy!  Yet 
these  are  the  teachers  who  sneeringly  al- 
lude to  the  marvelous  flexibility  of  Scrip- 
ture language,  which  may  possibly  have  a 
double  signification, — who  vauntingly  bid 
us  accept  such  science  (!)  as  evolution , 
based  on  the  “history  of  the  horse,”  in 
place  of  the  religion  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,— who  learnedly  ignore  Intelligent 
Causation, — who  laugh  at  the  superstitious 
idea  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul, — and 
offer  as  a substitute  for  all  these  this  “de- 
monstrative evidence”  that  we  are  lineal 
descendants  of  pollywogs  and  lizards! 

I shall  here,  in  parting  from  Professor 
Huxley,  take  the  liberty  of  turning  him 
directly  against  himself.  He  asserts  in 
these  lectures  that  evolution  is  a true  physi- 
cal cause  for  the  orohippus  with  four  toes 
changing  into  the  mesohippus  with  three 
toes,  and  then  into  the  horse  with  no  toes, 
while  “evolution”  means  exactly  the  op- 
posite, and  while  such  a difference  neces- 
sarily constitutes  a “leap,”  which  Mr.  Dar- 
win says  natural  selection  can  not  take. 
The  Professor  remarks: — 

“A  true  physical  cause  is,  however,  admitted  to 
be  such  only  on  one  condition — that  it  shall  account 


Chap.  X. 


Evolution. — Its  Strongest  Arguments. 


503 


for  all  the  phenomena  which  come  within  the  range 
of  its  operation.  If  it  is  inconsistent  with  any  one 
phenomenon  it  must  be  rejected.” — IIuxley, Man’s 
Place  in  Nature,  p.  126. 

Now,  this  completely  overthrows  the 
theory  of  descent,  for  here  is  “one  phe- 
nomenon ” with  which  evolution  is  dia- 
metrically “inconsistent,”  since  it  means 
the  opposite  in  every  sense  of  the  word, 
and  therefore,  by  the  authority  of  Profes- 
sor Huxley  himself,  “//  must  be  rejected ” 
as  “a  true  physical  cause”!  Does  not  evo- 
lution, therefore,  “fall  to  the  ground”  at 
the  hands  of  one  of  its'  ablest  exponents? 
(See  another  quotation  from  Professor 
Huxley,  equally  fatal,  on  page  325.)  For 
surely,  as  the  difference  between  any  one 
of  these  species  of  ’hippus  and  the  one 
nearest  to  it  constitutes  necessarily  “a  great 
and  sudden  leap,”  which  natural  selection 
could  not  take,  if  Mr.  Darwin  is  admitted 
as  authority,  unless  connected  by  numer- 
ous “slight  successive  variations,”  it  fol- 
lows that  so  long  as  such  slight  transitional 
forms  are  not  produced  and  can  not  be 
produced  as  evidence,  so  long  does  evolu- 
tion fail  to  constitute  “a  true  physical 
cause,”  and  therefore  “must  be  rejected.” 
If  Professor  Huxley  shall  say  that  such 
transitional  forms  in  the  shape  of  “slight 
successive  variations”  will  yet  be  found 
some  time  in  the  future,  then,  I answer, 
wait  for  your  “true  physical  cause”  till  they 
are  found  and  produced  as  evidence;  for, 
until  such  time,  evolution  “must  be  re- 
jected,” by  your  own  consistent  law  of 
logic,  as  here  laid  down! 

I have  thus  considered  all  the  main  ar- 
guments heretofore  advanced  by  evolu- 
tionists in  support  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory 
of  descent.  I began  with  reversions  and 
the  great  class  of  arguments  based  on  etn- 
bryology,  leading  on  to  rudimentary  organs , 
anatomical  resemblance , the  achievements 


of  the  breeder  and  the  fancier,  ending  with 
the  geologic  record  and  the  graduated  suc- 
cession of  paleontologic  remains. 

By  the  simplest  and  most  casual  analy- 
sis, and  even  from  a superficial  examina- 
tion of  these  various  classes  of  facts,  it  has 
been  seen  that  every  argument  relied  upon 
in  support  of  evolution  not  only  fails  to 
aid  it  in  the  slightest  degree  but  has  been 
shown  to  be  directly  and  absolutely  op- 
posed to  the  system,  by  fair  rules  of  logic 
and  universally  accepted  definitions  of 
words.  It  must  therefore  strike  the  reader 
— since  not  a single  argument  heretofore 
considered  unanswerable  is  found  to  favor 
the  theory,  but  that  all  classes  of  physio- 
logical and  biological  facts  are  opposed  to 
to  it — that  a weaker  and  more  fallacious 
scientific  hypothesis  has  not  been  seriously 
proposed  from  the  days  of  Aristotle  to  the 
present  time.  It  is  simply  a matter  of  as- 
tonishment that  every  argument  adduced 
by  these  authors,  on  being  brought  to  the 
test  of  even  a casual  examination,  should 
not  only  have  turned  out  hopelessly  weak 
but  utterly  self-stultifying.  That  a number 
of  the  greatest  naturalists  and  most  learned 
scientists,  such  as  Darwin,  Huxley,  Wallace, 
Tyndall,  Haeckel,  Spencer,  &c.,  should  not 
have  been  able  to  see  the  utter  inefficiency 
and  defectiveness,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
self-contradiction  of  the  main  arguments 
they  have  been  employing  for  so  many 
years,  is  enough  to  weaken  one’s  faith  in 
the  value  of  intellectual  culture  or  the  ben- 
efits resulting  from  a scientific  education. 
At  all  events,  it  goes  to  show  that  the  time 
has  come  for  people,  even  of  the  most  or- 
dinary education,  to  think  for  themselves 
rather  than  subscribe  unreservedly  to  the 
opinion  of  any  scientist,  however  learned, 
— believing,  as  they  may  safely  do,  from 
this  on,  that  the  greatest  minds  oftentimes 
fall  into  the  greatest  errors. 


504 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


Chapter  XI. 


DIFFICULTIES  AND  INCONSISTENCIES  OF 

EVOLUTION. 


The  Origin  of  Wings  in  Birds,  Bats,  and  Insects,  Wholly  Inexplicable  on  the  Principles  of  Natural 
Selection. — A Difficulty  which  Evolutionists  never  Attempt  to  Meet. — Natural  Selection  can  Only 
Work  on  Useful  Organs  and  Variations. — Incipient  Wings  shown  to  be  not  only  Useless  but  Injurious, 
if  they  ever  Existed.— As  Natural  Selection  can  make  no  “Leaps,”  Wings  must  have  been  Miraculously 
Created. — Reasons  for  this  Conclusion.  — The  First  Wings  demonstrated  to  have  been  Miraculously 
Formed. — All  Mechanical  Operations  which  Overcome  Laws  of  Nature,  Supernatural. — No  Device, 
such  as  a Wing,  where  Multiplied  Parts  show  Design  for  One  End,  can  Result  Without  Primordial  In- 
tellect.—The  Flying  of  Human  Beings,  by  Mechanical  Wings  Alone,  not  only  Possible  but  Probable 
in  the  Near  Future.— Mr.  Darwin’s  Theory  Again  Breaks  Down  by  his  own  Express  Stipulation.— The 
Rattlesnake’s  Musical  Appendage  could  not  have  been  Started  by'Evolution,  even  if  it  could  Afterward 
be  Improved  by  it. — The  Venom  of  Serpents  Conclusive  Proof  Against  the  Theory,  being  a Wonderful 
Chemical  Combination  Relating  Solely  to  Other  Organisms. — It  could  only  have  Originated  by  Prior 
Intelligence.— The  Vegetable  Kingdom  has  Many  Examples  of  Design,  and  a Clearly  Intelligent  and 
Preconceived  Intention. — The  Tappus  of  the  Thistle  and  Dandelion,  for  Carrying  Seeds  through  the 
Air,  could  not  have  Originated  by  Natural  Selection,  as  their  Incipiency  would  have  been  Wholly 
Useless. — Mr.  Darwin  Admits  that  on  Certain  Conditions  his  Theory  would  be  Annihilated. — The 
Conditions  Distinctly  Complied  With,  to  the  Letter. — Peculiar  Odor  and  Flavor  of  Ants  and  Bees  made 
for  the  Special  Benefit  of  Other  Species. — The  Odor  of  the  Fox’s  Feet  not  for  its  own  Good  (since  it 
leads  to  its  Destruction),  but  for  the  Advantage  of  the  Dog  and  Wolf. — Inconsistencies  of  Evolution 
Pointed  Out. — The  Mane  of  the  Lion  claimed  by  Mr.  Darwin  to  have  been  Developed  as  a Protection. 

— The  Question  of  the  Neck  of  the  Giraffe  having  been  Elongated  to  Reach  the  Branches  of  Trees 
Examined. — The  Whole  Supposition  Shown  to  be  Clearly  Absurd. — The  Trunks  of  Elephants  Con- 
sidered.— The  Hive-Bee’s  Sting  Developed  to  Cause  Suicide  if  Used. — Natural  Selection  could  not 
have  Produced  it. — Useless  Bees,  such  as  Hornets,  Wasps,  and  Bumble-Bees,  can  Sting  Without 
Danger  to  Themselves. — The  Reason  Why,  and  a Design  in  this  Difference. — The  Mimicry  of  Insects, 
Worms,  &c.,  for  Protection  from  Birds,  Examined. — Mr.  Darwin  Congratulates  Himself  that  he  has 
Aided  in  Overthrowing  Creation. — A Former  Pledge  Redeemed. — Professor  Haeckel  Proved  to  have 
Unwittingly  Yielded  the  Whole  Question  of  Evolution. — He  is  Indorsed  by  Mr.  Darwin. — The  Proof 
Conclusive. — Mr.  Darwin  again  Admits  his  Theory  will  “Break  Down”  on  Certain  Conditions. — These 
Conditions  Pointed  Out  in  Hundreds  of  Instances. — He  Furnishes  Himself  the  Direct  Proof  which 
Breaks  Down  his  Theory. — lie  Virtually  but  Unwittingly  Admits  that  Wings  must  have  been  Created. 

— Self-Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies  Multiply. — The  Theory  of  Descent  Hopelessly  Breaks  Down. 


The  object  in  this  closing  chapter  will 
be  to  point  out  some  of  the  more  promi- 
nent and  manifest  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  evolution  as  a reasonable  or  scientific 
hypothesis, and  to  indicate  such  contradic- 
tions and  inconsistencies  as  can  not  pos- 
sibly be  found  in  a theory  based  on  truth, 
whether  claiming  to  be  scientific  or  not. 

The  evident  impossibility  of  the  origin 
of  wings,  for  example,  in  flying  animals, 


such  as  birds,  bats,  insects,  and  some  rep- 
tiles and  fishes,  by  natural  selection,  is 
alone  sufficient  to  overthrow  evolution  if 
there  was  not  another  objection  to  the  hy- 
pothesis. It  is  a difficulty  which  has  not 
only  never  been  answered,  but  has  re- 
mained a distinct  rebuttal  of  the  evolution 
hypothesis  ever  since  the  first  publication 
of  Mr.  Darwin’s  Origin  of  Species.  In  his 
later  editions  of  that  work,  he  has  had  the 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Involution. 


505 


candor  to  refer  to  this  objection  and  state 
.it,  but  has  lacked  the  candor  to  admit  its 
unanswerable  character, — while,  at  the 
same  time,  he  does  not  even  make  an  at- 
tempt to  meet  it.  No  better  proof  need 
be  asked  to  show  that  the  origin  of  wings 
must  have  been  the  result  of  special  mirac- 
ulous creation  than  this  failure  on  the  part 
of  all  evolutionists,  from  Mr.  Darwin  down, 
to  point  out  even  a supposable  solution  on 
the  basis  of  natural  selection.  If  any  im- 
aginable explanation  had  been  possible  it 
would  surely  some  time  or  other  have  been 
attempted.  How  such  great  naturalists  as 
Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Haeckel,  can  feel 
satisfied  to  still  believe  in  evolution  while 
quietly  ignoring  this  crushing  difficulty, 
seen  in  its  millions  of  forms  all  around 
them, — while  each  bird,  bat,  or  insect,  con- 
stitutes a perpetual  refutation  of  their 
theory  of  natural  selection, — is  more  than 
I can  comprehend.  The  reason  why  they 
can  not  even  attempt  an  explanation  of 
this  problem  will  now  be  clearly  shown. 

Natural  selection,  Mr.  Darwin  repeatedly 
and  particularly  reminds  his  readers,  can 
not,  in  the  first  place,  produce  an  organ  of 
any  kind,  since  it  can  not  even  cause  the 
smallest  variation , thousands  of  which  it 
takes  to  constitute  an  organ,  if  carefully 
preserved.  It  can  only  cultivate  organs 
after  they  exist  and  are  useful,  by  saving  in 
one  direction  such  variations  as  “arise”  by 
unknown  laws,  and  tend  to  add  to  their 
usefulness : — 

“Several  writers  have  misapprehended  or  ob- 
jected to  the  term  natural  selection.  Some  have 
even  imagined  that  natural  selection  induces  vari- 
ability, whereas  it  implies  only  the  preservation  of 
such  variations  as  arise  and  are  beneficial  to  the 
being  under  its  conditions  of  life.” — “Unless favor- 
able variations  be  inherited  by  some  at  least  of  the 
offspring,  nothing  can  be  effected  by  natural  selec- 
tion.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  63,  80. 

Mr.  Darwin  and  other  evolutionists  can 
easily  tell  how  natural  selection  might  cul- 


tivate a bird’s  wings  by  making  them  more 
and  more  effective  after  such  wings  exist, 
and  are  so  far  useful  as  to  answer  the  func- 
tional purpose  of  flying.  But  until  the 
wings  of  birds  are  so  far  developed  as  to 
actually  serve  the  purpose  of  flight  they 
are  utterly  useless  (with  a very  few  excep- 
tions, as  in  the  case  of  the  ostrich,)  and 
Mr.  Darwin  is  well  aware  of  it.  Hence, 
natural  selection  could  not  have  touched 
the  first  bird’s  wings  during  all  their  in- 
cipient stages  of  development,  since  such 
stumps  or  rudiments  of  wings  could  have 
been  of  no  service  to  the  bird.  The  com- 
mon intelligence  of  every  reader  must  as- 
sure him  that  a stump  of  a wing  in  any 
animal  would  not  only  be  useless  but  would 
be  a clumsy  and  awkward  appendage,  bur- 
thensome  for  transportation  and  requiring 
extra  nutrition  for  its  growth  and  waste  of 
substance.  Hence,  during  all  the  incip- 
iency  of  the  wing-bones  in  starting  the  or- 
gan, or  until  the  wings  became  at  least  of 
sufficient  size  to  aid  in  running,  as  with 
the  wings  of  the  ostrich  referred  to,  they 
would  be  not  only  useless  but  harmful,  for 
the  reasons  given.  No  answer  can  possibly 
be  made  to  this  state  of  facts;  and  there- 
fore no  answer  has  ever  been  attempted. 

There  is  a distinct  intelligent  design  in 
the  wing  of  a bird,  bat,  or  insect,  and  it 
defies  the  ingenuity  and  reason  of  any  man 
to  conceive  of  such  adaptation  of  the  most 
wonderful  mechanical  principles  and  parts 
to  uses  and  results,  without  admitting  an 
intelligent  purpose  in  the  very  incipiency 
of  the  mechanism.  Atheism,  materialism, 
pantheism,  evolution,  and  every  other  the- 
ory or  philosophical  hypothesis  which  de- 
nies the  absolute  and  intelligent  existence 
and  intervention  of  a personal  Creator 
must  forever  stand  dumb  and  confounded 
in  the  presence  of  a humming-bird.  The 
whole  question  of  evolution,  with  its  truth 
or  falsity,  is  thus  narrowed  right  down  to 


5°6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


this  one  class  of  facts — the  wings  of  birds. 
If  they  could  not,  by  any  possibility,  have 
been  originally  produced  by  natural  selec- 
tion, as  I will  now  demonstrate,  then  the 
intervention  of  an  intelligent  Creative  Will 
is  an  unavoidable  necessity.  No  candid 
evolutionist  can  or  will  dispute  this. 

The  idea  of  the  possible  development  of 
a wing  by  natural  selection  saving  up  slight 
favorable  variations  is  a very  different 
thing  from  the  development  of  a leg  in  a 
snake,  for  instance,  or  any  animal  which  is 
legless,  and  which  moves  on  the  ground. 
Evolutionists  might,  with  some  show  of 
plausibility,  claim  that  the  nascent  leg  of 
a reptile,  even  in  its  most  incipient  rudi- 
ment or  before  it  showed  through  the  skin, 
might  be  of  some  use  in  causing  a sensible 
protuberance  of  the  surface  at  that  portion 
of  the  body  which  might  act  upon  the 
ground  in  helping  to  move  the  body  of  the 
snake.  But  not  so  with  the  wing  of  a bird. 
All  its  earlier  stages  of  development  would 
not  only  have  been  useless  but  actually 
harmful,  as  shown,  consuming  nutrition 
and  strength  for  transportation;  and  there- 
fore natural  selection,  so  far  from  assisting 
its  development,  would,  aided  by  the  econ- 
omy of  growth,  have  suppressed  it,  since 
Mr.  Darwin  in  a score  of  places  reiterates 
the  law  that  natural  selection  “acts  only,” 
“acts  exclusively,”  “acts  solely,”  in  saving 
variations  which  are  “beneficial,”  while  he 
repeatedly  tells  us  that  “This  preservation 
of  favorable  individual  differences  and 
variations, and  the  destruction  of  those  which 
are  injurious  [such  as  partly  developed 
wings,  which  could  be  of  no  service,]  I have 
called  natural  selection  or  survival  of  the 
fittest.” — ( Origin  of  Species,  p.  63.) 

The  movement  of  any  body  through  the 
air  which  is  many  times  its  specific  gravity 
is  utterly  unnatural,  and  opposed  to  every 
law  or  principle  of  evolution  as  expounded 
by  Mr.  Darwin  above,  Such  a mode  of 


locomotion  as  the  movement  of  a body 
through  the  atmosphere  having  a thousand 
times  its  weight  being  absolutely  opposed  to 
Nature , is,  therefore , in  its  original  design 
and  construction,  supernatural ! Being  su- 
pernatural, and  depending  for  its  accom- 
plishment on  the  combination  of  numerous 
mechanical  devices  and  principles,  in  op- 
position to  the  laws  of  Nature,  and  em- 
bracing the  highest  elements  and  faculties 
of  reason,  it  amounts  to  an  absolute  de- 
monstration that  the  first  wings  were  con- 
structed and  adapted  to  their  use  by  an 
intelligent  Creative  Will! 

Evolutionists  often  ask  their  opponents 
to  produce  a miracle.  I assert  that  birds, 
bats,  and  insects, are  perpetual  and  unmis- 
takable miracles,  at  least  in  their  primal 
origin,  according  to  the  intrinsic  definition 
of  the  word.  Our  dictionaries  define  a 
miracle  to  be  a supernatdral  event — an  oc- 
currence contrary  to  the  established  la7cs  of 
Nature.  The  flying  of  a bird,  a thousand 
times  heavier  than  the  air,  is  a purely  me- 
chanical process, — an  operation  of  the  very 
highest  order  of  intelligent  skill, — and  is 
accomplished  in  violation  of  the  central 
law  of  Nature — gravitation.  There  is  no 
part  of  the  process  of  flying  but  what  is  or 
must  have  been  in  its  primordial  com- 
mencement a miraculous  operation,  since 
all  mechanical  results  come  from  the  in- 
telligent use  of  one  law  of  Nature  by  which 
to  overcome  another,  and  are  therefore 
supernatural  events. 

Thus,  evolutionists  have  the  indispu- 
table proof  of  bona  fide  miracles  all  around 
them  all  the  time;  while  the  inventor  who 
shall  in  the  future  construct  an  apparatus 
by  which  a man  may  fly  through  the  air  by 
the  mechanical  aid  of  wings  alone, operated 
by  his  own  individual  strength,  will  have 
wrought  a new  miracle  in  mechanics,  and 
one  of  the  greatest  since  the  world  began. 
Such  a supernatural  event  I believe  not 


Chai\  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  507 


only  possible  but  probable,  and  in  strict 
accord  with  the  rapidly  advancing  triumphs 
of  human  skill  in  employing  one  set  of 
Nature’s  laws  to  overcome  and  render 
subservient  another  set. 

While  the  assumption  here  maintained 
(that  the  incipient  structure  or  unuseful 
stage  of  a bird’s  wing,  if  developed  at  all, 
could  not  have  been  produced  by  natural 
selection,)  would  seem  an  almost  self-evi- 
dent proposition,  I will  add  a few  remarks 
and  quotations  which  will  prevent  the  most 
casual  reader  from  losing  the  annihilating 
force  of  this  single  argument. 

I have  already  shown  from  Mr.  Darwin, 
as  just  quoted,  that  natural  selection  can 
not  induce  a single  variation,  much  less  a 
whole  organ, — that  it  can  “only”  save  by 
survival  of  the  fittest  those  slight  variations 
which  happen  to  “arise”  and  are  “bene- 
ficial” to  the  creature.  As  shown  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  Mr.  Darwin  lays  it 
down  as  a law  of  evolution,  that  natural 
selection  can  not  advance  by  sudden  leaps , 
but  must  proceed  by  means  of  short  and 
slow  steps.  I will  add  here  a citation  or 
two : — 

“Natural  selection  acts  only  by  taking  advantage 
of  slight  successive  variations;  she  can  never  take 
a great  and  sadden  leap  [such  as  producing  an  effi- 
cient wing],  but  must  advance  by  short  and  sure 
though  slow  steps.  ” 

“Natural  selection  is  a slow  process,  and  the  same 
favorable  conditions  must  long  endure  in  order  that 
any  marked  effect  should  thus  be  produced.” 

“As  natural  selection  acts  solely  by  accumulating 
slight  successive  favorable  variations,  it  can  produce 
no  great  sudden  modifications  [such  as  a useful 
wing] ; it  can  act  only  by  short  and  slow  steps.” 

“Natural  selection  acts  exclusively  by  the  pre- 
servation and  accumulation  of  variations  which  are 
beneficial.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  97, 
156,  180,  413. 

The  reader  can  not  misunderstand  this 
language.  A wing  of  a bird  has  a score  or 
more  of  distinct,  ingenious,  but  co-ordi- 
nated parts  and  devices,  each  of  which  is 


essential  to  make  it  useful,  the  whole  show- 
ing unmistakably  the  work  of  the  highest 
order  of  intellectual  skill  and  designing 
capability.  Such  a complex  and  perfect 
organ  could  not  have  come  by  chance  as  a 
monstrosity  or  a single  spontaneous  varia- 
tion. It  could  not  have  been  produced  by 
evolution,  for  natural  selection  makes  no 
“sudden  leaps”  nor  saves  any  such  mon- 
strosities should  they  occur,  since  it  “acts 
solely  by  accumulating  slight  successive 
favorable  variations,”  and  “can  act  only  by 
short  and  slow  steps.”  As  if  to  impress  it 
on  the  reader’s  mind,  Mr.  Darwin  takes 
pains  to  show  that  monstrosities,  should 
they  occur  in  a species,  can  not  be  saved 
by  natural  selection,  but  will  be  soon  lost 
and  obliterated  by  intercrossing  with  the 
normal  individuals.  (See  pages  394,  395, 
of  this  book.)  He  also  adds: — 

“We  have  abundant  evidence  of  the  constant 
occurrence  under  Nature  of  slight  individual  differ- 
ences of  the  most  diversified  kinds;  and  thus  we  are 
led  to  conclude  that  species  have  generally  origi- 
nated by  the  natural  selection,  not  of  abrupt  modi- 
fications, but  of  extremely  slight  differences.” — Ani- 
mals and  Plants,  vol.  ii . , p.  495. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  demonstration, 
so  completely  established  by  Mr.  Darwin 
himself  that  there  is  no  evading  or  misun- 
derstanding it,  as  follows:  The  wing  of  the 
first  bird  in  its  incipient  stages,  if  it  came 
by  “short  and  slow  steps”  at  all,  would 
have  been  wholly  useless,  and  not  only 
useless  but  absolutely  injurious  during 
numberless  generations  of  incipiency,  for 
reasons  given.  As  “natural  selection  acts 
exclusively  by  the  preservation  and  accu- 
mulation of  variations  which  are  beneficial” 
and  “the  destruction  of  those  which  are  in- 
jurious,” it  could  have  done  nothing  toward 
developing  the  first  pair  of  perfect  wings, 
since  it  could  not  touch  them  till  they  were 
already  sufficiently  developed  to  be  useful , 
except  to  destroy  them  as  “injurious”  ap- 
pendages! Hence,  here  is  one  complex 


5°8 


The  Problem  of  Hitman  Life. 


organ,  in  tens  of  thousands  of  forms,  which 
is  outside  of  the  operations  of  evolution, 
and  must  therefore  be  inevitably  relegated 
to  the  intelligent  workings  of  the  Creative 
Will.  Can  anything  be  more  clearly  de- 
monstrated ? 

How  completely, then, does  Mr.  Darwin’s 
theory  again  “break  down”  by  his  own 
definite  stipulation,  already  quoted.  Here 
it  is  reproduced,  that  the  reader  may  not 
lose  the  benefit  of  the  edifying  lesson  which 
it  inculcates: — 

“If  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  any  complex 
organ  [such  as  the  wing  of  a bird]  existed,  which 
could  not  possibly  have  been  formed  by  numerous 
successive  slight  modifications,  my  theory  would 
absolutely  break  down.” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies, p.  146. 

The  demonstration  is  “absolutely”  com- 
plete, since  it  is  in  Mr.  Darwin’s  own  very 
concise  and  unmistakable  language.  Not 
only  have  we  “demonstrated”  a single 
“complex  organ” — all  he  stipulates  — 
which  could  not  “possibly”  have  been 
produced  by  “numerous  successive  slight 
modifications,”  but  we  have  pointed  out 
countless  millions  of  them  all  around  us  in 
the  wings  of  the  myriad  birds,  bats,  and 
insects,  not  one  of  which  could  have  been 
so  produced,  since  they  would  have  been 
utterly  useless  during  all  their  “ numerous 
successive  slight  modifications,”  or  until 
they  had  attained  functional  capacity!  I 
ask  the  reader,  therefore,  does  not  his  the- 
ory “absolutely  break  down”? 

The  wings  of  flying  creatures  are  not  the 
only  organs,  however,  which  necessarily 
“break  down”  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory.  He 
alludes  to  the  musical  appendage  of  the 
rattlesnake  as  intended  to  frighten  away 
its  enemies.  Now,  we  can  safely  admit 
that  natural  selection  might  cultivate  this 
rattling  apparatus,  making  it  more  and 
more  useful  after  it  had  been  so  far  de- 
veloped as  to  produce  an  alarming  sound, 
by  continually  preserving  those  reptiles 


which  had  the  best  developed  rattles.  But 
what  produced  this  rattle  in  its  incipiency 
up  to  the  point  of  utility?  What  caused 
the  first  joint  of  this  rattle,  which  will  make 
no  sound  and  would  be  of  no  possible  use 
in  alarming  enemies?  Then,  what  prepared 
the  end  of  the  tail  especially  for  the  growth 
of  such  an  organ?  Natural  selection  did 
not  do  it,  as  it  can  act  only  on  useful  or 
beneficial  organs!  Hence,  the  rattle  of 
this  snake  was  originally  designed  by  an 
intelligent  Creative  Will,  and  thus  “abso- 
lutely” breaks  down  the  theory  of  descent, 
according  to  Mr.  Darwin’s  definite  agree- 
ment. 

Not  only  the  rattle  but  the  encysted 
poison  beneath  the  serpent’s  fangs  is 
clearly  beyond  the  power  of  natural  selec- 
tion. This  venom  has  exclusive  reference 
to  the  organisms  of  other  animals,  and  in- 
volves the  nicest  and  most  profound  know- 
ledge of  chemical  principles.  It  is  not  of  the 
least  direct  use  to  these  reptiles,  as  they  are 
proved  to  live  just  as  long  after  the  vesicle 
is  removed.  As  serpents  are  among  the 
earliest  land  animals,  they  were  produced 
with  this  most  complex  chemical  adapta- 
tion to  other  animals  long  before  their 
natural  enemies  were  in  existence ! Hence, 
even  if  the  gradual  development  of  this 
poison  in  the  snake  were  possible  by  natu- 
ral selection,  as  a weapon  of  offence  and 
defence,  through  its  relationship  and  com- 
bats with  other  animals,  it  is  utterly  barred, 
since  its  natural  enemies  had  yet  to  be 
created. 

But  if  even  they  had  existed,  the  incip- 
ient correlation  and  co-ordination  of  inge- 
nious parts  necessary  to  make  this  poison 
beneficial  as  a weapon  is  entirely  beyond 
the  power  of  natural  selection.  Without 
the  tubular  fang  the  poison  could  not  be  , 
conducted  into  the  wound,  to  be  made 
effectual;  and  without  the  vesicular  cyst 
secured  to  the  base  of  the  fang  and  open- 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  509 


ing  into  its  conduit,  the  poisonous  secre- 
tion would  be  of  no  use.  Which  was  de- 
veloped first — the  hollow  tooth  or  the  ve- 
sicle to  contain  the  poison?  Either  of  them 
developed  before  the  other  would  have 
been  useless , and  hence  could  not  have 
been  produced  by  natural  selection,  as 
Mr.  Darwin  tells  us  in  twenty  places.  If 
they  were  both  gradually  developed  to- 
gether, what  good  would  a partly  de- 
veloped sac  have  done,  or  while  in  its  in- 
cipiency,  before  it  would  hold  the  poison? 
— and  of  what  use  would  a fang  have  been 
with  its  conduit  but  partly  perfected  ? — and 
of  what  benefit  would  both  have  been  if 
the  complex  secretive  vessels  conveying 
the  fluid  to  the  sac  had  been  absent? — and 
then  how  could  the  poison  have  been  in- 
jected into  the  wound  after  the  cyst,  the 
secretive  vessels,  and  the  hollow  tooth, 
were  perfect,  but  for  that  most  wonderful 
system  of  muscles  by  which  the  contraction 
of  the  cyst  is  effected?  Yet  all  these  com- 
plicated parts,  if  developed  at  all,  were, 
during  their  incipiency,  absolutely  worth- 
less so  far  as  their  ultimate  end  or  use  was 
concerned, — since,  being  of  no  use  to  the 
serpent  itself,  they  were  only  serviceable 
as  a weapon  when  perfected  and  all  com- 
bined so  as  to  act  in  co-operation  and 
correlation. 

It  conclusively  follows,  therefore,  as 
natural  selection  can  “act  only”  in  culti- 
vating useful  organs,  that  the  cyst,  the 
contracting  muscles,  the  secretive  ducts, 
and  the  tubular  fang,  in  all  their  incipient 
stages  of  development  (if  developed  at  all) 
were  completely  beyond  the  reach  of  evo- 
lution, and  hence  must  have  been  the  re- 
sult of  a designing  and  intelligent  Creative 
Will.  These  are  only  bare  specimens  of 
the  tens  of  thousands  of  insuperable  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory 
of  development  throughout  every  depart- 
ment of  Nature’s  polity. 


Even  in  the  vegetable  kingdom  the  same 
law  prevails.  There  are  many  organs  in 
flowers  and  plants,  such  as  numerous  spe- 
cies of  orchids,  which  could  only  have 
been  formed  and  adjusted  to  their  uses 
by  the  designing  capacity  of  an  intelligent 
Creative  Will, — organs  which  would  have 
been  wholly  useless  in  their  incipient  stages 
of  development  if  gradually  produced  by 
evolution.  They  must  therefore  have  been 
created  complete,  or  at  one  “sudden  leap.” 
I will  give  but  a single  illustration  of  this 
law  in  the  pappus  of  the  thistle  or  dande- 
lion, which  I have  never  seen  noticed. 
Mr.  Darwin  urges,  and  correctly  I have 
no  doubt,  that  the  real  design  or  object 
of  the  thistle-down  is  to  carry  and  dis- 
tribute the  seeds  of  the  plant  by  floating 
them  through  the  air.  Yet  he  is  so  short- 
sighted as  to  suppose  that  natural  selection 
could  build  up  this  pappus  to  its  floating 
capacity  by  “short  and  slow  steps,”  while 
such  down  in  its  incipiency  would  have 
been  absolutely  useless,  and  therefore  be- 
yond the  reach  of  natural  selection ! I will 
quote  his  words: — 

“If  it  profit  a plant  to  have  its  seeds  more  and 
more  widely  disseminated  by  the  wind,  I can  see 
no  greater  difficulty  in  this  being  effected  by  natural 
selection  than  in  the  cotton-planter  increasing  and 
improving  by  selecting  the  down  in  the  pods  on  his 
cotton-trees.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.  67. 

Really,  if  Mr.  Darwin  is  so  blinded  by 
evolution  that  he  “can  see  no  greater  diffi- 
culty” in  the  operations  of  a thistle  under 
so-called  natural  selection  than  in  the  in- 
telligent selection  practiced  by  the  cotton- 
planter,  he  ought  to  see  no  manner  of 
“difficulty”  in  the  miraculous  creation  of 
each  separate  species.  The  truth  is,  no 
man  can  candidly  say  what  Mr.  Darwin 
so  deliberately  says  above  and  be  in  a 
state  of  mind  to  reason  logically  on  any 
subject.  Besides,  the  cotton-planter  would 
not  think  of  improving  the  down  of  his 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


510 


cotton-pods  till  the  down  existed.  Here, 
then,  by  this  single  illustration,  evolution 
completely  breaks  down ; for,  as  natural 
selection  can  only  act  on  the  thistle-pappus 
after  the  down  has  attained  a useful  size, 
or  is  sufficiently  developed  to  admit  of  its 
being  carried  by  the  wind, will  Mr.  Darwin 
tell  us  what  started  this  incipient  down 
and  developed  the  beautifully  complex 
organ  out  of  which  these  myriad  hairs 
shoot?  This  focal  organ  is  specially 
adapted  to  the  outgrowth  of  these  down- 
hairs,  and  is  of  marvelously  complex  struc- 
ture under  microscopic  power,  containing 
hundreds  of  separate  and  correlated  parts, 
and  hence  must  have  been  specially  pre- 
pared for  the  development  of  that  mass  of 
down!  It  follows,  therefore,  that  natural 
selection  is  utterly  overthrown,  since  this 
focal  organ,  with  its  countless  incipient 
hairs  of  down  were  absolutely  useless  till 
the  down  was  sufficiently  developed  to  be 
drifted  by  the  wind.  Hence,  natural  selec- 
tion could  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  it 
in  its  original  and  complicated  structure, 
and  therefore  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  must 
“absolutely  break  down,”  by  his  own  ex- 
press stipulation. 

I am  compelled  to  admire  the  extrava- 
gantly liberal  propositions  of  Mr.  Darwin, 
if  I am  obliged  to  disagree  with  his  logic. 
He  not  only  stipulates  that  his  “theory 
would  absolutely  break  down"  if  a single 
organ  could  be  found  which  natural  selec- 
tion could  not  have  developed,  but  he 
frankly  declares: — 

“If  it  could  be  proved  that  any  part  of  the  struc- 
ture of  any  species  had  been  formed  for  the  exclu- 
sive good  of  another  species  it  would  annihilate 
my  theory , for  such  could  not  have  been  produced 
by  natural  selection.” — Origin  of  Species,  p.  162. 

Why  did  Mr.  Darwin  carefully  use  the 
word  “species”  in  the  above  stipulation  in- 
stead of  the  word  being?  Evidently  it  was 
a matter  of  shrewd  precaution;  for,  had 


he  stipulated  “any  part  of  the  structure  of 
any  beitig"  “for  the  exclusive  good  of 
another  being"  he  would  have  just  annihi- 
lated his  own  theory  by  proving,  as  he  did, 
that  the  mammary  glands  of  every  mother 
throughout  the  class  of  mammals  are  de- 
veloped “exclusively,”  not  for  her  own 
good  but  for  the  good  of  other  beings! 
But  as  carefully  as  this  precaution  aims  to 
guard  the  difficulty,  it  falls  fatally  short, 
for  the  mammary  glands  of  the  first  mam- 
mal mother  were  developed  (if  developed 
at  all)  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  mammal 
“species”  on  earth,  since  they  all  came  from 
her  by  transmutation!  How  much  does 
Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  lack  of  being  annihi- 
lated, then,  according  to  his  own  agree- 
ment? 

But  there  are  numerous  species  which 
have  parts  (or  qualities, which  are  the  same 
thing,)  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  other 
species.  The  flavor  and  odor  of  the  ants, 
which  adapt  them  to  the  taste  and  smell 
of  the  ant-bear,  can  be  of  no  service  to 
these  insects.  For  countless  generations 
natural  selection  has  kept  right  on  culti- 
vating the  emmet,  keeping  up  its  peculiar 
flavor  which  adapted  it  to  the  peculiar  ap- 
petite of  the  ant-eater,  when,  by  survival 
of  the  fittest,  it  might  have  completely 
changed  both  its  flavor  and  odor  to  a 
quality  which  would  have  disgusted  its  de- 
vourer. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  peculiar  flavor 
of  the  hive-bee,  which  adapts  it  to  the 
special  benefit  of  the  midwald , a bird  which 
feeds  on  nothing  else.  Mr.  Darwin  urges 
with  all  his  ingenuity  that  the  marvelous 
instinct  of  the  hive-bee,  as  well  as  its  re- 
markable structure, is  the  result  of  “numer- 
ous successive  slight  variations”  saved  up 
from  age  to  age  “by  natural  selection”  for 
the  good  of  this  insect.  Yet  this  “scruti-  ' 
nizing”  law  keeps  right  on  cultivating  the 
flavor  of  this  insect,  which  it  has  otherwise 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution. 


5ii 


so  vastly  improved,  and  which  fits  it  so 
exactly  and  “exclusively”  for  the  appetite 
of  the  midwald,  since  it  is  fair  to  infer,  as 
the  bees  do  not  eat  one  another,  their  pe- 
culiar flavor  must  be  for  the  special  benefit 
of  this  other  species,  and  therefore  must 
inevitably  “annihilate”  his  theory! 

The  odor  of  the  fox’s  feet  “is  for  the 
exclusive  good  of  another  species,”  the 
wolf  or  the  dog,  since  by  it  the  latter  is 
enabled  to  run  down  and  destroy  the  for- 
mer on  account  of  greater  endurance.  The 
odor  of  the  fox  is  clearly,  then,  of  no  good 
to  it,  since  it  is  the  most  efficient  means  of 
its  destruction.  That  this  proverbially  cun- 
ning animal  knows  instinctively  that  its 
odor  is  its  deadly  enemy,  and  would,  no 
doubt,  be  glad  to  have  it  abolished,  if  pos- 
sible, is  proved  by  its  habit  of  “doubling” 
on  its  own  track  to  misdirect  the  hounds. 
Yet  Mr.  Darwin’s  “scrutinizing”  law  of 
natural  selection,  after  weeding  out  the 
foxes  for  ages  which  gave  forth  the 
strongest  odor,  on  the  principle  of  survival 
of  the  fittest  or  the  less  odorous,  still  con- 
tinues right  on  cultivating  this  destructive 
quality,  which  can  only  be  for  the  “exclu- 
sive good”  of  renard’s  enemies!  Hence, 
by  the  unanimous  judgment  of  all  the  foxes 
in  Christendom  and  heathendom,  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s theory  is  hopelessly  annihilated,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  stipulation! 

But,  then,  Mr.  Darwin  would  say,  while 
natural  selection  was  substituting  a new 
flavor  for  the  ant  it  would  also  have  been 
at  work  on  the  ant-bear,  changing  its  taste, 
so  that  in  the  end  the  ant  would  not  have 
gained  anything  by  the  modification ! This, 
however,  does  not  quite  correspond  with 
the  work  of  natural  selection,  which  Mr. 
Darwin  and  Mr.  Wallace  so  elaborately 
discuss,  where  worms  and  insects  of  vari- 
ous kinds  are  made  to  imitate  the  bark  of 
trees,  dead  and  green  leaves, &c.,  all  to  pro- 
tect them  from  the  devouring  insectiverous 


birds.  It  is  remarkably  strange  that  natu- 
ral selection  should  have  thus  devoted  all 
its  attention  to  the  form  and  color  of  worms, 
while  neglecting  the  ejesoi  the  birds!  Had 
the  birds’  eyes  been  as  assiduously  culti- 
vated as  the  color  and  form  of  these  in- 
sects, their  imitation  of  the  leaves  and  bark 
of  trees  would  have  done  them  no  manner 
of  good,  and  the  mimicry  would  have  con- 
sequently been  abandoned  in  its  incip- 
iency. 

This  stupid  performance  of  Nature  is 
also  illustrated  by  the  mane  of  the  lion , 
which,  Mr.  Darwin  gives  it  as  his  learned 
opinion,  was  developed  by  selection  to 
protect  his  neck  from  the  teeth  of  other 
lions  and  the  teeth  and  claws  of  tigers! 
But  it  seems  singular  that  the  teeth  of  the 
tiger  were  completely  neglected  by  natural 
selection,  while  taking  the  particular  pains 
to  produce  such  an  enormous  growth  of 
hair  as  a protection  for  the  lion ! If  natural 
selection  devotes  such  careful  attention  to 
worms  and  insects,  it  might  show  a little 
regard  for  the  tiger’s  teeth,  and  at  least 
cause  them  to  keep  pace  with  the  hair  on 
a lion’s  neck! 

But  is  not  Mr.  Darwin  slightly  mistaken? 
The  tiger  finds  the  lion’s  matted  mane  an 
excellent  foundation  into  which  it  fastens 
its  teeth  and  fore-claws  while  using  its 
hind-claws  in  fearful  lancination  upon  the 
loins  and  hips  of  the  lion,  where  natural 
selection  has  wholly  neglected  to  provide 
a suitable  protection ! I think  the  lion 
can  justly  enter  his  stentorian  protest 
against  Mr.  Darwin’s  “scrutinizing”  law, 
as  a great  scientific  humbug  in  furnishing 
him  with  a matted  mane  for  the  particular 
advantage  of  the  tiger  to  cling  to  while  un- 
mercifully raking  his  hinder  parts,  where 
there  is  no  protecting  hair!  And  while 
protesting,  he  should  petition  natural  se- 
lection to  show  a little  discrimination  and 
remove  the  useless  bunch  of  hair  from  the 


512 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


end  of  his  tail  (the  same  as  that  of  his 
mane , precisely,)  and  distribute  it  over  his 
hips ! 

Elephants  in  some  parts  of  India,  Mr. 
Darwin  says,  were  gradually  destroyed  by 
insects  which  bored  into  their  backs.  Now 
this  is  attributable  wholly  to  the  inexcus- 
able neglect  of  natural  selection  in  not 
covering  the  backs  of  those  princely  beasts 
with  a protection  like  the  lion’s  mane! 
That  Mr.  Darwin’s  great  and  “scrutiniz- 
ing” law  could  have  done  this,  and  thus 
have  saved  these  pachydermatous  probos- 
cidians of  the  jungle  from  such  contempt- 
ible enemies  as  gadflies  is  clearly  evident, 
after  having  stretched  the  same  animal's 
nose  five  feet  long  for  the  primitive  pur- 
pose, as  supposed,  of  smelling  at  a dis- 
tance ! 

If  there  is  the  least  truth  in  natural  se- 
lection having  elongated  the  neck  of  the 
giraffe  just  to  enable  it  to  browse  off  the 
limbs  of  the  acacia,  as  Mr.  Darwin  insists, 
rather  than  to  change  its  mode  of  living, 
and  cultivate  in  it  a taste  and  habit  like 
those  of  its  sensible  neighbor  the  eland, 
there  would  have  been  surely  no  trouble 
in  evolving  a carapace  for  the  back  of  the 
elephant  as  impenetrable  as  that  of  the 
tortoise,  or  else  in  extending  its  trunk  till 
it  would  reach  clear  around  it!  Pshaw! 
This  whole  business  of  natural  selection, 
judging  it  by  its  bungling  operations,  is  an 
unmitigated  fraud  on  the  brute  creation. 
While  it  can  industriously  build  up  a mane 
on  the  lion’s  neck,  it  leaves  its  loins  at  the 
mercy  of  the  tiger  and  protects  the  end 
of  its  tail!  While  it  allows  certain  insects 
to  bore  into  the  elephant’s  back  for  the 
want  of  a coat  of  hair  half  as  dense  as 
that  of  the  lion’s  mane,  it  changes  other 
insects  into  forms  and  colors  to  protect 
them  from  the  hungry  birds,  at  the  same 
time  totally  neglecting  the  birds’  eyesight. 
It  stretches  the  complicated  neck  of  the 


giraffe,  with  all  its  important  vital  organs, 
such  as  vertebra,  thyroid  cartilage,  larynx, 
trachea,  tongue,  aesophagus,  with  the  nu- 
merous arteries,  ligaments,  and  muscles  in- 
volved, to  enable  it  to  reach  the  branches 
of  trees,  when  by  simply  stretching  its  nose 
as  it  did  in  the  case  of  the  elephant,  it 
could  have  reached  much  higher  branches 
and  stood  square  on  its  feet!  Inconsis- 
tency, thy  name  is  evolution  ! 

The  hive-bee  is  another  example  of  the 
infamous  unfairness  of  natural  selection. 
While  this  most  Valuable  and  intelligent  of 
all  insects  has  its  defensive  weapon  so 
awkwardly  constructed  by  Darwin’s  “scru- 
tinizing” law  that  it  is  compelled  to  com- 
mit suicide  by  pulling  out  its  barbed  sting 
whenever  it  defends  itself  from  an  enemy, 
all  other  bees,  such  as  wasps,  hornets, 
bumble-bees,  &c.,  worthless  and  uncivilized 
in  habit,  can  sting  ad  libitum  without  doing 
the  least  damage  to  their  own  mechani- 
cally constructed  weapon.  And,  further, 
while  the  bumble-bee  has  a proboscis  suf- 
ficiently long  to  suck  red  clover  and  extract 
its  precious  stores  of  delicious  nectar  which 
hive-bees  so  dearly  love  (as  proved  by  their 
sucking  at  broken  corollas),  the  probos- 
cides of  the  latter  have  been  neglected  for 
ages  by  natural  selection,  when  the  six- 
teenth of  an  inch  added  would  have  opened 
up  to  these  deserving  little  geometricians 
untold  wealth  of  honey.  Yet  a worthless 
moth,  Mr.  Darwin  assures  us,  has  had  its 
proboscis  extended  by  natural  selection 
four  inches  in  length,  simply  to  adapt  it  to 
sucking  the  nectar  from  a single  bell- 
shaped flower!  Just  a hundredth  part  of 
this  development  added  to  the  hive-bee  s 
proboscis  would  have  enabled  it  to  suck 
the  red  clover,  and  thus  compete  with  its 
big,  awkward  cousin. 

Now,  is  it  at  all  reasonable  or  probable 
that  the  same  “scrutinizing”  universal  law, 
natural  selection,  should  have  developed 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  5 1 3 


so  enormously  the  proboscis  of  a moth 
while  utterly  neglecting  the  most  persist- 
ently industrious  insect  in  the  world?  Is 
it  not  rather  probable  and  reasonable  that 
both  species  are  exactly  as  they  were  cre- 
ated primordially  by  the  intelligent  cause 
of  all  animal  forms?  Is  it  not  altogether 
and  rationally  more  probable,  even  if  nat- 
ural selection  is  all  Mr.  Darwin  claims  it 
to  be,  that  it  should  have  acted  on  this 
moth  in  such  a manner  as  to  change  its 
habits  and  mode  of  living  to  that  of  ordi- 
nary millers  and  butterflies  rather  than  to 
have  kept  on  in  one  direction  till  such  a 
prodigious  and  monstrous  proboscis  had 
been  formed? 

This  latter  question  is  equally  applicable 
to  numerous  other  species.  Take  the  sala- 
mander, for  example,  with  its  extensile 
tongue  so  enormously  developed  that  it 
can  thrust  it  out  seven  or  eight  inches,  like 
an  arrow,  and  seize  an  insect!  Even  con- 
ceding such  a law  as  natural  selection  and 
such  a process  as  specific  development,  is 
it  not  vastly  more  probable  that  this  little 
reptile  would  have  been  adapted  by  evo- 
lution to  a mode  of  life  and  a means  of 
securing  food  analogous  to  that  of  the 
newt  or  the  frog  rather  than  to  have  under- 
gone such  an  almost  miraculous  transform- 
ation in  its  tongue?  It  would  seem  infinitely 
more  sensible  and  consistent  that  it  should 
have  evolved  by  an  increasing  strength  in 
its  legs,  and  thus  have  attained  an  agility 
enabling  it  to  leap  upon  its  prey  with  the 
requisite  precision  and  velocity.  The  ex- 
tensile elongation  of  one  of  its  fingers 
would  have  seemed  far  more  probable  and 
consistent.  This  enormous  extension  of 
the  tongue  is  absolutely  the  last  thing  any 
one  but  a perfect  inventor  could  have 
thought  of.  I should  have  undertaken  to 
make  it  feed  on  grass  or  dig  for  worms 
twenty  times  over,  had  I been  natural  se- 
lection, before  thinking  of  such  an  ingeni- 


ous and  apparently  impossible  contrivance. 
Yet  the  same  “scrutinizing”  principle,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Darwin,  did  this  which 
leaves  barbs  on  the  sting  of  the  hive-bee, 
by  which  it  kills  itself  whenever  it  under- 
takes to  defend  itself! 

Of  course,  it  would  not  suit  Mr.  Darwin’s 
designless  and  purposeless  ideas  of  the 
universe  to  suppose  that  the  hive-bee  was 
originally  intended  as  man’s  servant,  and 
that  its  self-destructive  barbed  sting  was 
a wise  provision  by  which  to  gradually 
weed  out,  by  a kind  of  natural  selection, 
the  more  vicious  and  belligerent  individ- 
uals, and  thus  adapt  the  community  more 
and  more  to  the  wants  of  man,  by  making 
it  more  and  more  domestic  and  less  and 
less  dangerous;  while,  at  the  same  time, 
such  bees  as  can  never  be  of  service  to 
man — the  hornet  and  wasp — are  left  with 
weapons,  however  harmful  to  their  ene- 
mies, perfectly  harmless  to  themselves! 
Such  a conception  of  the  hive-bee  and  its 
self-destructive  sting  would  not  have  an- 
swered Mr.  Darwin’s  purpose  at  all,  as  it 
would  at  once  have  involved  the  necessity 
of  an  intelligent  Creative  Will  for  the 
origin  of  each  species,  and  rather  than  to 
admit  such  a fatal  blow  to  evolution  as  the 
hand  of  God  in  Nature  would  necessarily 
be  he  would  rather  see  natural  selection 
proved  guilty  of  a thousand  just  such  in- 
explicable inconsistencies  as  I have  been 
pointing  out. 

His  chief  congratulation  of  himself,  as 
he  takes  a retrospect  of  his  work  in  a late 
publication,  is  that  he  has  at  least  done 
something  to  cripple  the  idea  of  an  intel- 
ligent Creative  Power  in  the  origination  of 
the  various  specific  forms: — 

“I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  as  some  excuse  [for 
errors  in  a former  work]  that  I had  two  distinct  ob- 
jects in  view:  firstly,  to  show  that  species  had  not 
been  separately  created ; and  secondly,  that  natural 
selection  had  been  the  chief  agent  of  change.  . . . 

I was  not,  however,  able  to  annul  the  influence  of 


5r4 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


my  former  belief,  then  almost  universal,  that  each 
species  had  been  purposely  created.  ...  I have  at 
least,  as  I hope,  done  good  service  in  aiding  to  over- 
throw the  dogma  of  separate  creations.” — Darwin, 
Descent  of  Alan,  p.  Cl. 

If  the  reader  will  pardon  the  egotism,  I 
will  add,  as  modestly  as  possible,  the  belief 
that  “I  have  at  leas  ,as  I hope, done  good 
service  in  aiding  to  overthrow  the”  almost 
infinitely  absurd  theory  of  natural  selec- 
tion ! 

My  limit  forbids  me  touching  upon  more 
than  a fraction  of  the  inconsistencies  which 
crowd  upon  and  overwhelm  Mr.  Darwin’s 
theory  of  natural  selection;  yet  I must 
name  one  which  is  so  self-evidently  suici- 
dal that  it  is  a profound  puzzle  how  this 
shrewd  naturalist  could  ever  have  been  led 
to  iterate  and  reiterate  a principle  so  fatal 
to  evolution.  I refer  to  the  law, emphasized 
in  more  than  twenty  places  in  his  various 
publications,  that,  as  soon  as  a species  be- 
comes changed  in  structure  by  natural 
selection  the  improved  descendants  must 
inevitably  exterminate  the  parent  form  and 
take  its  place.  To  show  that  I do  not 
misconceive  Mr.  Darwin’s  real  meaning  I 
will  quote  a few  specimen  passages: — 

"In  all  cases  the  new  and  improved  forms  op'  life 
tend  to  supplant  the  old  and  unimproved  forms.” 
“New  varieties  continually  take  the  place  of  and 
supplant  the  parent  form.” 

“New  and  improved  varieties  will  inevitably 
supplant  and  exterminate  the  older.” — Origin  of 
Species,  pp.  264,  266,  413. 

A mere  child  is  capable  of  seeing  that 
the  principle  here  laid  down  must  neces- 
sarily and  inevitably  overthrow  the  whole 
system  of  evolution,  since  it  involves  the 
existence  of  but  one  single  species  now  on 
earth,  and  that  the  last  one  developed  by 
transmutation!  If  the  fox  came  from  the 
marsupial  as  a modified  descendant,  the 
marsupial,  as  the  “parent  form,”  would 
have  been  “inevitably”  extinguished.  If 
the  wolf  came  from  the  fox  by  specific 
transformation  through  Mr.  Darwin’s  law 


of  development,  then  the  fox  would  have 
shared  the  same  fate  as  the  parent  marsu- 
pial, and  in  turn  would  have  been  “inevit- 
ably ” exterminated.  If  the  dog  developed 
from  the  wolf,  then  no  wolf  could  now 
exist,  if  there  is  the  least  truth  in  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s law.  Neither  could  the  dog  exist 
after  the  transmutation  to  the  lemur  had 
taken  place.  And  so  on  through  all  the 
various  species  of  the  monkey,  from  the 
lemur  up  to  the  gorilla ; as  soon  as  one  had 
given  rise  to  a more  perfectly  developed 
form,  the  unimproved  parent  form  must 
“inevitably”  have  suffered  extirpation, 
leaving,  as  a matter  of  course,  but  one 
permanent  breed  of  monkeys  in  existence 
all  the  time,  and  that  the  highest  or  last 
developed!  And, finally, when  some  orang- 
outang gave  the  initial  divergence  which 
inaugurated  the  human  race,  the  last  spe- 
cies of  the  monkey  would  have  perished, 
since  the  law  is  inevitable , as  laid  down  by 
Mr.  Darwin,  that  the  “New  and  improved 
varieties  will  inevitably  supplant  and  exter- 
minate the  older." 

Thus,  the  self-stultifying  principle  of 
evolution  under  natural  selection,  as  ex- 
pounded by  the  founder  of  the  system, 
involves  the  necessary  and  unavoidable 
fact  that  man  should  now  be  the  only  living 
species  on  this  earth,  since  every  form  be- 
low him  through  which  his  line  of  descent 
has  progressed  would  have  successively 
and ‘“inevitably  ” succumbed  and  been  ex- 
terminated as  soon  as  each  improved  form 
had  made  its  appearance ! The  fact,  there- 
fore, that  we  now  have  a hundred  thousand 
species  of  living  animals  known  to  zoology, 
all  of  which  have  survived  that  inevitable 
extermination  which  is  and  must  be  the 
necessary  result  of  evolution,  if  it  be  a true 
theory,  shows  conclusively  that  we  have 
one  hundred  thousand  living  witnesses  now 
on  earth  demonstrating  the  utter  fallacy 
of  Mr.  Darwin’s  hypothesis! 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  5 1 5 


But,  even  worse  than  this:  I will  now 
prove,  from  Mr.  Darwin’s  own  express  ad- 
missions, that  the  start  of  evolution  by 
natural  selection  from  his  supposed  prime- 
val form  of  life  was  a practical  impossi- 
bility. It  will  be  remembered  that  all  evo- 
lutionists assume  the  first  animal  form  of 
life — whether  created  by  miraculous  pow- 
er, as  Mr.  Darwin  concedes,  or  formed  by 
spontaneous  generation,  as  Prof.  Haeckel 
assumes, — was  the  simplest  being  imagin- 
able, and  that  from  such  a homogeneous 
organism  higher  organic  forms  were  grad- 
ually and  successively  differentiated.  Now, 
it  is  easy  to  prove  by  Mr.  Darwin’s  own 
statements,  repeatedly  made  throughout 
his  works,  that  no  such  differentiation  or 
development  from  a low  to  a high  organism 
would  occur  in  Nature,  since  there  is  no  ad- 
vantage to  a simple  being  in  having  a higher 
organism!  Look  at  a few  passages : — 

“A  very  simple  form  fitted  for  very  simple  con- 
ditions of  life  [such  as  his  own  first  forms  and  those 
of  Professor  Haeckel]  might  remain  for  indefinite 
ages  unaltered  or  unimproved ; for  what  would  it 
profit  an  infusorial  animalcule,  for  instance,  or  an 
intestinal  worm  to  become  highly  organized?" — 
Animals  and  Plants,  vol.  i.,  p.  ig. 

This  very  manner  of  putting  the  question 
— “for  what  would  it  profit ,”  &c.,  shows 
that  this  author  means  to  convey  the  idea 
that  it  would  profit  them  nothing.  Then,  as 
natural  selection  only  acts  on  profitable 
variations, it  follows  that  such  simple  beings 
as  the  monera  or  primordial  mollusks  would 
not  have  changed  their  structures  to  be- 
come more  highly  organized.  Mr.  Darwin 
says : — 

“Natural  selection  acts  through  one  form  having 
some  advantage  over  other  forms  in  the  struggle  for 
existence.” 

“Natural  selection  acts  only  by  the  preservation 
and  accumulation  of  small  inherited  modifications, 
each  profitable  to  the  preserved  being." — Origin  of 
Species,  pp.  75,  96. 

Then,  it  is  clear,  since  it  would  not  profit 
a very  simple  being  to  change  and  assume 


a high  organism,  natural  selection  could 
do  nothing  with  those  first  forms,  conse- 
quently transmutation  receives  its  quietus 
at  the  start.  This  Mr.  Darwin  absolutely 
confirms,  as  follows: — 

‘ 1 Under  very  simple  conditions  of  life  a high  or- 
ganism would  be  of  no  service." — Origin  of  Species, 

p.  100. 

How,  then,  in  the  name  of  science  and 
common  reason  did  natural  selection  go 
to  work  to  transmute  a moneron  or  a sim- 
ple mollusk  into  a higher  organism,  since 
a high  organism  would  be  of  no  profit  to 
such  simple  creatures,  and  since  natural 
selection,  as  he  tells  us  in  numerous  places, 
can  only  work  for  the  profit  of  a being? 
Thus, his  entire  theory  of  natural  selection 
is  broken  down  at  the  very  point  where  he 
supposes  it  to  have  started,  and  by  the  in- 
evitable working  of  the  very  laws  he  has 
established  to  control  its  action;  for,  if  a 
“high  organism  would  be  of  no  service"  to 
simple  beings  “under  very  simple  condi- 
tions of  life”  (the  very  conditions  and  the 
very  beings  his  transmutation  starts  with), 
then  it  utterly  prohibits  the  initial  steps  of 
evolution,  and  consequently  overthrows 
the  whole  system! 

This  sweeping  and  annihilating  conclu- 
sion harmonizes  with  the  innumerable 
beauties  and  wonders  witnessed  in  exam- 
ining the  shells  of  ocean,  with  their  mar- 
velous symmetry,  elegant  forms,  and  ex- 
quisite shades  of  color.  In  particular,  the 
forms  of  the  shells  of  many  mollusks,  such 
as  the  wonderful  janthina,  the  beautiful 
triton,  and  the  marvelously  balanced  sca- 
laria,  never  could  have  been  produced  by 
natural  selection,  since  it  works  only  for 
the  good  of  beings,  and  the  shells  here  in- 
dicated are  immeasurably  more  difficult 
for  the  beings  to  manage  either  in  the 
breakers  or  in  the  deep  sea  than  would 
have  been  the  simple  shell  of  the  oyster 
or  clam. 


5l6 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


The  beautiful  variegation  and  harmo- 
nious design  in  form  and  color  in  these 
thousands  of  shells,  which  no  art  can  ever 
imitate  or  even  approach,  have  but  one 
solution.  They  are  the  product  of  an  in- 
telligent Creative  Will  acting  with  the  same 
love  for  the  beautiful  and  varied  in  form 
and  hue  which  He  has  instilled  into  the 
higher  and  nobler  faculties  of  man.  Such 
wonderful  designs  and  patterns,  which  be- 
come more  and  more  elaborate  and  ex- 
quisite as  the  microscope  unfolds  their 
indescribable  beauties,  can  only  be  con- 
templated by  a well  balanced  and  logical 
mind  as  the  workmanship  of  an  intelligence 
like  our  own  but  infinite  in  ideal,  and  an 
executive  capability  immeasurably  above 
human  powers  of  conception. 

I will  now  redeem  my  pledge,  made  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  and  show  that  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel  distinctly  teaches  (to  the 
utter  contradiction  and  refutation  of  his 
whole  theory)  that  natural  selection  is 
limited  in  its  operations  to  the  type  or  tribe 
of  creatures  which  it  is  improving, — that 
is  to  say,  the  members  of  one  type  or  phy- 
lum,such  as  artioulata,can  not  be  changed 
into  some  form  of  the  vetebrata,  nor  vice 
versa ! I am  sure  this  would  hardly  be 
believed,  unless  I quote  his  language,  for 
it  absolutely  destroys  the  foundation  of 
evolution,  making  special  creations  neces- 
sary to  bridge  over  the  chasms  between  all 
the  different  types.  These  are  his  words : — 

“There  appears,  indeed,  to  be  a limit  given  to 
the  adaptability  of  every  organism,  by  the  type  of  its 
tribe  or  phylum.  . . . Thus,  for  example,  no  verte- 
brate animal  can  acquire  the  ventral  nerve-chord  of 
articulate  animals,  instead  of  the  characteristic 
spinal  marrow  of  the  vertebrate  animals.  However, 
within  this  hereditary  primary  form,  within  this 
inalienable  type,  the  degree  of  adaptability  is  un- 
limited.” [By  “adaptability”  he  means  the  same 
as  “transmutability.”] — II  aeckel  , History  of  Crea- 
tion, vol.  i.,  p.  250. 

This  is  a most  astounding  admission  to 
be  made  by  the  greatest  apostle  of  Dar- 


winism in  Germany;  and,  in  order  to  show 
how  he  is  recognized  by  Mr.  Darwin  him- 
self, I quote  the  following: — 

“Professor  Haeckel,  in  his  General  Morphology 
and  other  works,  has  brought  his  great  knowledge 
and  abilities  to  bear  on  what  he  calls  phylogeny  or 
the  lines  of  descent  of  all  organic  beings.” — Dak- 
WIN. — Origin  of  Species,  p.  381. 

The  statement  I have  just  quoted  from 
Professor  Haeckel  is  a part  of  the  “ great 
knowledge  and  abilities  ” to  which  Mr.  Dar- 
win refers,  and  is  thus  endorsed  by  him, — 
which  is  also  a clear  admission  that  Mr. 
Darwin  himself  believes  with  Professor 
Haeckel  that  every  organism  is  limited  to 
‘‘the  type  of  its  tribe,”  and  can  not  by 
natural  selection,  transmutation,  or  “adapt- 
ability,” go  beyond  it!  What  clearer 
proof  do  we  need  than  this  concise  state- 
ment that  there  must  have  necessarily  been 
a special  miracle  required  at  the  beginning 
of  each  new  tribe  or  type  of  organism,  since 
the  “adaptability”  of  a being  is  rigidly  con- 
fined to  the  “type  of  its  tribe”?  It  may 
develop  or  be  transmuted  in  every  direc- 
tion, he  says, within  the  “tribe  or  phylum,” 
and  to  this  extent  the  Professor  insists  that 
“the  degree  of  adaptability  is  unlimited," 
but  it  can  not  be  transmuted  beyond  such 
type  or  tribe.  He  does  not  leave  us  in  the 
slightest  doubt  as  to  what  he  means  by 
“type,”  “tribe,”  or  “phylum,”  but  dis- 
tinctly illustrates  his  meaning  by  saying 
that  it  signifies  the  same  as  sub-kingdom, 
since  “no  vertebrate  animal  can  acquire  the 
ventral  nerve-chord  of  articulate  animals,  in- 
stead of  the  characteristic  spinal  marrow 
of  the  vertebrate  animals”;  and,  of  course, 
as  the  “ articulate  animal  ’is  also  confined 
to  the  “type  of  its  tribe,”  since  “every 
organism”  is  thus  limited,  no  articulate 
animal  ” could  overstep  the  boundaries  of 
the  “tribe”  or  “phylum”  to  which  it  be- 
longed. 

Here,  then,  I assert  that  Prof.  Haeckel, 


CiiAr.  XI. 


Difficulties  ami  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  5 1 7 


with  Mr.  Darwin’s  endorsement,  surrenders 
the  whole  citadel  of  evolution,  showing  in 
the  plainest  and  most  unequivocal  lan- 
guage that  the  first  animal  with  a “spinal 
marrow”  and  a backbone,  or  the  first  fish, 
was  the  work  of  miraculous  creation, since 
no  articulate  animal,  or  those  in  the 
sub-kingdoms  below  it  being  limited  to 
their  type  or  tribe,  could  have  been  trans- 
muted into  vertebrate  animals!  There  is  no 
evading  the  force  of  this  annihilating  ad- 
mission ; and  it  therefore  follows,  that,  as 
the  first  vertebrate  animal  could  not  have 
been  produced  by  natural  selection  through 
slight  successive  modifications,  Mr.  Dar- 
win’s theory  has,  for  the  fourth  time,  “ab- 
solutely” broken  down.  The  reader  must 
not  forget  his  language  : — 

“If  it  could  be  demonstrated  that  any  complex 
organ  [such  as  the  backbone  and  spinal  marrow  of 
the  first  vertebrate  animal]  existed,  which  could 
not  possibly  have  been  formed  by  numerous  suc- 
cessive slight  modifications,  my  theory  would  abso- 
lutely break  down." — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species, 
p.  146. 

Here,  then,  again  Mr.  Darwin  surrenders 
his  whole  theory  as  having  “absolutely” 
broken  down,  since  I have  detnonstrated  by 
Professor  Haeckel,  with  his  own  endorse- 
ment, that  the  first  organic  individual  of 
every  “tribe,”  “phylum,”  or  “type,”  could 
not  possibly  have  come  from  the  pre- 
ceding tribe  or  type  by  transmutation  or 
through  natural  selection,  and  must  of 
necessity  therefore  have  been  miraculously 
created ! 

A man  who  will  carefully  follow  these 
great  scientists  and  critically  scan  their 
writings  needs  but  very  little  argumenta- 
tive ability  to  overthrow  the  theory  at  every 
crook  and  turn  of  its  anfractuous  mean- 
derings,  for  they  will  invariably  furnish 
him  with  such  an  abundance  of  materials 
in  the  shape  of  self-contradictory  reason- 
ing and  absurd  logic  that  he  only  needs 
the  classificatory  talent  of  a druggist’s 


clerk  to  sort  them  out,  label  them,  and 
place  them  conspicuously  upon  the  shelf. 

A single  illustration  right  here,  in  pass- 
ing, will  confirm  this  representation.  In 
the  last  quotation  Mr.  Darwin  says  his 
“theory  would  absolutely  break  down”  if 
a single  “complex  organ”  could  be  shown 
which  could  not  have  been  produced  by 
natural  selection,  or  slight  successive  modi- 
fications. Yet  he  himself  points  out  a 
“complex  organ  ” which  he  distinctly  de- 
clares could  not  have  been  produced  by 
“ variation  and  natural  selection  ”!  Reader, 
be  astonished  as  you  may,  this  is  the  exact 
and  literal  truth.  Speaking  of  the  wings 
of  the  ostrich , only  partly  developed  as 
they  are  now  found,  he  remarks: — 

“As  organs  in  this  condition  would  formerly, 
when  still  less  developed,  have  been  of  even  less 
use  than  at  present,  they  can  not  formerly  have 
been  produced  through  variation  and  natural  selec- 
tion, which  acts  solely  for  the  preservation  of  useful 
modifications.  ” — Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  p.  398. 

I have  thus  only  to  place  his  two  state- 
ments in  juxtaposition,  and  his  hypothesis 
breaks  down!  And  here, surprising  as  it  may 
seem,  I have  accidentally  and  unexpect- 
edly run  across  a complete  confirmation  of 
the  argument  made  use  of  at  the  beginning 
of  this  chapter,  namely,  that  the  wings  of 
all  birds  in  their  incipiency  or  when  just 
beginning  to  develop  (if  developed  at  all) 
could  not  have  been  produced  by  natural 
selection,  since  such  rudimental  wings 
would  have  been  wholly  useless ! Is  it  not 
astonishing  how  a false  theory,  however 
ably  managed,  is  necessarily  compelled  to 
destroy  itself  by  its  own  inconsistencies 
and  self-contradictions?  Mr.  Darwin,  if 
he  were  an  out-and-out  opponent  of  evo- 
lution, and  if  he  had  been  using  this  in- 
cipient-wing argument  directly  against  the 
theory  of  natural  selection, could  not  have 
employed  stronger  or  more  direct  and  ex- 
plicit language ; for,  “As  organs  in  this  con- 
dition [wings  not  sufficiently  developed  for 


518 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


flight,  as  those  of  the  ostrich,]  would  for- 
merly when  still  less  developed  have  been  of 
even  less  use  than  at  present , they  can  not  for- 
merly have  been  produced  through  variation 
and  natural  selection , which  acts  solely  by  the 
preservation  of  useful  modifications  ' ! 

Then  wings  must  “formerly  have  been 
produced  ” by  miraculous  creation  ! Really 
Messrs.  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Haeckel, 
when  properly  understood  and  brought 
out,  form  a trio  of  the  ablest  opponents  of 
evolution  who  have  ever  written  on  the 
subject.  This  was  clearly  seen  while  fol- 
lowing Professor  Huxley  through  his  “his- 
tory of  the  horse.”  The  world  of  science 
will  ever  stand  indebted  to  these  great 
naturalists  for  the  efficient  service  they 
have  rendered  the  cause  of  progressive 
truth  in  so  thoroughly  annihilating  such  a 
hideous  scientific  excrescence  as  modern 
evolution. 

Mr.  Darwin,  as  the  founder  of  this  sys- 
tem, can  not  be  quietly  permitted  to  teach, 
as  he  does  here, that  wings  partly  developed 
would  be  useless,  and  therefore  ucan  not 
formerly  have  been  produced  through  varia- 
tion and  natural  selection ,”  and  then  escape 
scot-free,  and  be  allowed  to  go  on  tinker- 
ing away  at  his  broken-down  theory  the 
same  as  if  it  still  existed  unimpaired.  He, 
as  well  as  his  followers,  will  be  and  must 
be  held  literally  and  rigidly  bound  to  all 
the  consequences  of  such  a truthful  and 
necessary  admission.  Among  these  con- 
sequences are,  firstly,  his  theory  “abso- 
lutely breaks  down”  by  his  own  voluntary 
stipulation,  since  he  himself  points  out  an 
organ  which  he  declares  could  not  have 
been  produced  by  “variation  and  natural 
selection”;  and  secondly,  as  the  wings  of 
all  flying  animals — birds,  bats,  and  insects, 
— in  their  incipient  stages  of  development 
were  likewise  necessarily  useless,  they  were 
also  beyond  the  power  of  natural  selection, 
and  hence  were  the  product  of  miraculous 


creation!  Thus,  by  the  fairest  logical  in- 
ductive reasoning  and  from  irresistible 
conclusions  drawn  from  premises  laid 
down  by  Mr.  Darwin  himself,  I have  de- 
monstrated the  miraculous  creation  of  the 
different  classes  of  flying  animals,  since 
they  are  wholly  beyond  the  reach  of  natu- 
ral selection. 

In  fact,  by  noticing  the  last  quotation, 
it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Darwin  distinctly 
teaches  that  any  useless  organ , no  matter 
what  it  may  be,  would  equally  break  down 
his  theory  if  pointed  out,  since  he  lays  it 
down  as  a principle  that  such  organs  “can 
not  formerly  have  been  produced  through 
variation  and  natural  selection,  which  acts 
solely  by  the  preservation  of  useful  modifica- 
tions"! I can  within  ten  minutes  count 
off  on  my  fingers  a hundred  complex  or- 
gans which  are  now  and  must  have  always 
been  wholly  useless  to  their  owners,  such 
as  the  tails  of  dogs,  wolves,  foxes,  panthers, 
tigers, lions, &c.  These  organs  have  clearly 
never  been  of  any  service  to  these  animals, 
not  even  as  rudders  to  aid  in  turning  when 
pursuing  prey,  as  some  have  supposed, since 
the  rabbit  can  make  quicker  turns  than  any 
dog  or  wolf!  Others  have  supposed  that 
they  may  have  been  of  use  as  balances  in 
leaping  from  branch  to  branch.  This  is 
exploded  by  the  fact  that  no  animal  can 
balance  sowed  or  leap  so  accurately  as  the 
tailless  gibbon.  The  truth  is,  such  organs 
are  not  only  useless  but  injurious,  being 
burthensome  to  carry,  while  they  consume 
nutrition,  and  hence  must  necessarily 
break  down  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory. 

No  one  will  dispute  that  the  humps  of  a 
camel  are  now  useless  to  their  owner,  and 
necessarily  have  always  been.  How,  then, 
have  these  humps  been  gradually  de- 
veloped? Mr.  Darwin  distinctly  says 
“they  can  not  formerly  have  been  produced 
through  variation  and  natural  selection, 
which  acts  solely  by  the  preservation  of 


chap.  xi.  Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution.  5!9 


useful  modifications.”  The  camel’s  humps, 
therefore,  as  Mr.  Darwin  must  necessarily 
believe,  could  only  have  coihe  in  the  first 
place  by  miraculous  creation ; and  thus, 
like  all  other  useless  organs,  “absolutely 
break  down”  his  theory!  Yet  this  contra- 
dictory and  self-stultifying  hypothesis  is 
the  kind  of  science  (!)  we  are  called  upon 
to  accept,  and  these  are  the  great  scientific 
investigators  held  up  for  the  guidance  and 
admiration  of  the  world,— who  would,  with 
such  logic  as  we  have  just  been  examin- 
ing, overthrow  religion,  annihilate  creation, 
and  dethrone  the  God  of  Nature,  by  de- 
monstrating their  own  lineal  descent  from 
the  monkey  if  not  from  the  ass. 

But  I do  not  propose  to  let  Professor 
Haeckel  off  quite  so  easily  with  his  fatal 
concession  that  no  creature  can  be  differ- 
entiated or  transmuted  beyond  its  “phy- 
lum” or  the  “type  of  its  tribe.”  If  these 
great  naturalists,  as  just  remarked,  who  are 
pointed  to  as  infallible  guides  in  scientific 
matters,  will  persist  in  striking  fatal  blows 
unwittingly  at  their  own  favorite  theory  of 
evolution,  I propose  to  do  them  the  justice, 
if  not  the  favor,  of  holding  them  rigidly  to 
their  own  annihilating  admissions. 

In  one  part  of  his  book  Prof.  Haeckel 
asserts,  without  proviso  or  qualification, 
that  there  is  “no  limit”  to  the  transmuta- 
tion or  “adaptation”  of  a species,  but  that 
such  adaptivity  is  not  only  “unlimited” 
but  “infinite”: — 

“An  eighth  and  last  law  of  adaptation  we  may- 
call  the  law  of  unlimited  or  infinite  adaptation.  By 
it  we  simply  mean  to  express  that  we  know  of  no 
limit  to  the  variation  of  organic  forms  occasioned  by 
the  external  conditions  of  existence." — Haeckel, 
History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  p.  249. 

As  I have  always  thought,  it  is  here 
finally  proved  that  evolutionists  have  no 
real  occasion  for  denying  man’s  immortal 
being  in  a future  life,  or  even  of  doubting 
the  existence  of  a personal  God;  for  Pro- 


fessor Haeckel  believes,  as  he  here  says* 
in  “infinite  adaptation”  “occasioned  by  the 
external  conditions  of  existence”!  Why, 
then,  in  the  name  of  natural  selection  and 
common  reason,  should  not  a man  develop 
into  a God,  after  first  evolving  into  aq 
angel,  just  as  consistently  as  that  a moliusk 
has  already  developed  into  a man  after 
having  evolved  into  a kangaroo?  There 
surely  can  be  but  little  more  difference 
between  a God  and  an  intellectual  man 
than  between  man  and  the  almost  lifeless 
polyp!  At  all  events,  I would  be  willing 
to  pay  adoration  to  such  a God  as  suffi- 
ciently exalted  above  myself  to  be  regarded 
as  an  infinite  Creator! 

Professor  Haeckel,  however,  is  not  so 
much  to  blame  in  speaking  thus  of  the 
“ unlimited  or  infinite  adaptation"  of  animals 
to  other  forms  by  natural  selection,  and  of 
thus  making  it  possible  for  an  infinite  God 
to  evolve  out  of  a man,  since  his  great 
leader  and  master  in  evolution  has  set  the 
example : — 

“I  can  see  no  limit  to  this  power  [natural  selec- 
tion] in  slowly  and  beautifully  adapting  each  form 
to  the  most  complex  relations  of  life." — Darwin, 
Origin  of  Species,  p.  412. 

The  reader  would  be  astonished  if  he 
could  really  see  in  a classified  list  the 
number  of  instances  in  which  Mr.  Darwin 
(as  well  as  Professor  Haeckel)  contradicts 
himself  in  his  incongruous  reasoning  about 
natural  selection,  and  what  it  must  accom- 
plish if  evolution  be  true.  I will  just  here 
digress  sufficiently  to  instance  a few  ex- 
amples. 

As  just  quoted,  he  sees  “no  limit”  to 
this  power;  and  yet,  as  quoted  a page  or 
two  back,  he  does  see  a distinct  “limit,” 
since  natural  selection  can  not  touch  a 
partly  developed  wing  nor  any  other  organ 
unless  it  is  useful ! 

He  teaches  in  numerous  places  in  his 
various  works,  as  already  quoted,  that  no 


52° 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life. 


matter  how  numerous  the  normal  individ- 
uals of  a species  or  the  parent  form  may 
be,  the  diverging  offspring,  which  are 
necessarily  few  in  number,  will  inevitably 
exterminate  their  parents.  A single  ex- 
ample : — 

“New  and  improved  varieties  will  inevitably 
supplant  and  exterminate  the  older.” — Origin  of 
Species , p.  413. 

Yet,  in  another  place  he  tells  us  that — 

“Any  form  existing  in  lesser  numbers  [such  as 
modified  offspring]  would,  as  already  remarked, 
run  a greater  chance  of  being  exterminated  than  one 
existing  in  large  numbers." 

“The  more  common  forms  hi  the  race  for  life 
[such  as  the  unimproved  parent  forms]  will  tend  to 
beat  and  supplant  the  less  common  forms." — Origin 
of  Species,  p.  136. 

Thus,  as  the  modified  offspring  are  al- 
ways at  the  start  “the  less  common  forms” 
they  would  be  beaten  by  “ the  more  com- 
mon forms”  or  those  “existing  in  large 
numbers,”  and  consequently  no  transmu- 
tation could  ever  take  place! 

Take  the  following  two  passages,  side 
by  side : — 

“We  have  every  reason  to  believe  from  the  study 
of  the  tertiary  formations,  that  species  and  groups 
of  species  gradually  disappear  one  after  another , 


from  the  world." 

“Scarcely  any  paleontological  discovery  is  more 
striking  than  the  fact,  that  the  forms  of  life  change 
almost  simultaneously  throughout  the  world." — 
Origin  of  Species,  pp.  293,  297. 

The  above  passages  need  no  comment. 
Finally,  read  the  following  lucid  contra- 
diction : — 

“ Judging  from  the  past  we  may  safely  infer  that 
not  one  living  species  will  transmit  its  unaltered  like- 
ness to  a distant  futurity."  [“Judging  from  the 
past”  read  the  following: — ] 

“Some  groups,  as  we  have  seen,  have  endured 
from  the  earliest  known  dawn  of  life  to  the  present 
day." — “The  genus  lingula,  for  instance,  the  spe- 
cies which  have  successively  appeared  at  all  ages, 
must  have  been  connected  by  an  unbroken  series  of 
generations  from  the  lowest  Silurian  stratum  to  the 
present  day" — Origin  of  Species,  pp.  293,  294,  428. 


Out  of  compassion  for  the  inventor  of 
“pangenesis”  and  the  discoverer  of  “gem- 
mules,”  I will  discontinue  this  list  and  re- 
turn to  Professor  Haeckel,  who  made  the 
not  less  important  discovery  of  his  “eighth 
and  last  law  of  adaptation,”  which  he  says 
“we  may  call  the  law  of  unlimited  or  infi- 
nite adaptation.” 

After  maintaining  his  hold  on  this  “law” 
for  a while,  the  Professor  probably  saw 
that  he  and  Mr.  Darwin  were  both  running 
the  transmutation  business  headlong  into 
the  development  of  angels  and  Gods  out 
of  monkeys  and  men,  with  such  a tremen- 
dous principle  in  Nature  as  this  “eighth  and 
last  law”  called  “the  law  of  unlimited  or 
infinite  adaptation so  he  was  shrewd 
enough  to  contradict  himself,  and  thus 
avoid  the  catastrophe  of  even  the  possible 
evolution  of  a God!  He  saw  there  was  no 
conceivable  way  of  doing  it  gracefully,  so 
he  resolutely  took  the  evolution  bull  by  the 
horns  and  announced,  as  formerly  quoted, 
that  there  is  unavoidably  a limit  to  the 
variation  of  organic  forms  which  absolutely 
confines  the  adaptability  of  every  creature 
to  the  “type  of  its  tribe” j and,  although  he 
annihilates  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  of  descent 
by  so  doing, and  demonstrates  the  necessity 
of  a miraculous  creation  at  the  start  of 
each  sub-kingdom,  he  thought  it  safest,  all 
things  considered,  to  confine  the  transmu- 
tation of  each  species  to  its  tribe  by  this 
consoling  remark:  “However,  within  this 
hereditary  primary  form,  within  this  ina- 
lienable type,  the  degree  of  adaptability  is 
unlimited.”  (See  the  whole  quotation,  page 
5i6-) 

Thus,  we  have  at  last  arrived  at  a clear 
insight  as  to  the  meaning  of  evolution,  as 
taught  by  Professor  Haeckel.  A member 
of  a vertebrate  species,  for  example,  can 
not  step  over  the  bounds  of  its  “phylum” 
or  “ tribe”  and  become  a lobster,  an  oyster, 
or  a star-fish,  but  it  can  do  anything  else! 


Chap.  XI. 


Difficulties  and  Inconsistencies  of  Evolution. 


5=i 


Inside  of  the  “type  of  its  tribe”  its  “adapt- 
ability is  unlimited,”  and  therefore  a mouse 
is  not  only  capable  of  becoming  an  elephant 
by  “adaptation”  under  natural  selection, 
but  it  is  equally  possible  for  an  elephant  to 
become  a mouse , as  Professor  Haeckel  abso- 
lutely believes,  if  he  has  any  confidence  in 
his  own  statement!  A tortoise  is  not  only 
capable  of  being  transmuted  into  a monkey , 
since  its  “adaptability  is  unlimited”  within 
its  “type,”  but  it  is  equally  possible  for  a 
monkey  to  evolve  into  a tortoise,  notwith- 
standing “evolution,”  as  already  shown, 
means  exactly  the  opposite ! It  is  not  only 
possible  for  a fish  to  develop  into  a man, 
but,  according  to  this  great  authority  on 
evolution,  it  is  equally  feasible  for  a man 
to  be  transmuted  into  a fish,  since  within 
the  “type  of  his  tribe”  his  adaptability  is 
unlimited ! 

Thus,  again, unexpectedly  we  are  brought 
to  another  distinct  example  of  the  mon- 
strous absurdity  exposed  in  the  last  chap- 
ter, while  reviewing  Professor  Huxley’s 
“history  of  the  horse,”  that  evolution  sig- 
nifies, when  necessary  with  these  natural- 
ists, either  forward  or  backward,  improve- 
ment or  retrogression,  progress  toward 
perfection  or  degradation  toward  imper- 
fection! It  means, with  them, when  pressed 
for  explanation,  either  a development  to- 
ward the  heterogeneous  or  a transformation 
toward  the  homogeneous, — involves  either 
the  addition  of  parts  and  organs  to  a being 
or  their  elimination, — signifying  anything 
or  nothing,  whichever  best  suits  the  tem- 
porary convenience  of  these  great  scien- 
tists! What  better  proof  can  a superficial 
mind  require  than  this  indefinite  misappli- 
cation of  definite  words  that  the  whole 
system  of  evolution  is  a bungling  fraud! 

If  such  false  employment  of  words  and 
such  apparently  reckless  and  visionary 
statements  were  not  of  such  common 
occurrence  throughout  these  writings  we 


might  attribute  them  to  slips  of  the  pen  or 
an  unguarded  use  of  language.  But  they 
are  almost  as  numerous  as  the  pages  of  the 
books.  Take  this  fact  as  an  illustration: 
Mr.  Darwin  distinctly  teaches,  as  quoted 
in  the  conclusion  of  the  seventh  chapter, 
that  a prominent,  abrupt,  or  monstrous 
variation,  accidentally  occurring  in  a spe- 
cies, would  be  lost  in  a state  of  Nature  by 
the  promiscuous  intercrossing  of  such  ab- 
normal individual  with  the  ordinary  crea- 
tures, just  because  Nature  lacks  the  power 
of  forcible  separation ; while  the  breeder 
or  fancier  begins  his  selection  on  some 
half-monstrous  deviation,  and  succeeds  in 
time,  by  methodical  separation  and  selec- 
tion, in  producing  a distinct  breed.  Mr. 
Darwin  does  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  no 
kind  of  improvement  in  fancy  pigeons, 
sheep,  cattle,  or  swine,  could  be  made  by 
the  breeder  except  by  forcible  separation 
and  intelligent  selection,  both  of  which  is 
entirely  out  of  the  question  in  a state  of 
Nature.  Yet  both  Professors  Haeckel  and 
Huxley  distinctly  ignore  this  essential  and 
fundamental  difference: — 

‘ 1 The  nature  of  the  transformation  and  the  means 
by  which  it  is  produced  are  precisely  the  same  in  both 
artificial  and  natural  selection.” — Haeckel,  His- 
tory of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  p.  168. — Also,  his  General 
Morphology,  vol.  ii. , p.  248. 

‘‘As  I have  already  said, the  operation  of  Nature 
[in  transforming  a species]  is  exactly  the  same  as  the 
artificial  operation  of  man.”  . . . “The  conditions 
of  existence  may  play  exactly  the  same  part  for 
natural  varieties  as  man  does  for  domestic  varie- 
ties.”— IIUXLEY,  On  the  Origin  of  Species,  p.  122. 

Now,  such  false  and  purely  reckless 
statements  as  these  should  be  frowned 
down  by  ail  scientific  investigators  as  de- 
grading to  the  cause  of  science  and  true 
knowledge.  Yet,  to  favor  the  theory  of 
natural  selection  and  show  its  power  to 
change  one  specific  form  into  another  of 
the  most  diverse  structure,  these  writers 
both  publish  to  the  world  what  they  must 


522 


The  Problem  of  Human  Life . 


have  known  to  be  pure  fiction,  by  a fair 
construction  of  their  language. 

Almost  entire  chapters  in  Mr.  Darwin’s 
works  are  devoted  to  showing  the  difference 
between  the  breeder’s  operation  (where  in- 
telligent and  methodical  selection  culls  out 
a peculiar  form  or  color,  and  then  forci- 
bly separates  and  breeds  from  those  alone 
which  have  the  same  peculiarity)  and 
Nature’s  efforts,  where  no  forcible  separa- 
tion or  prevention  of  promiscuous  inter- 
crossing can  take  place,  except  so  far  as 
the  stronger  prevail  over  the  weaker.  Yet 
these  authors  both  tell  us  that  the  efforts 
and  the  process  of  selection  under  Nature 
are  “exactly”  and  “precisely”  like  those  of 
the  fancier  and  the  breeder! 

This  is  quite  an  unusual  thing  for  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  but  is  an  every-chapter 
occurrence  with  Professor  Plaeckel.  Take 
the  following,  where  he  is  so  anxious  to 
make  the  reader  believe  that,  owing  to  the 
universal  “struggle  for  existence”  so  eulo- 
gized by  Mr.  Darwin,  there  would  be  no 
trouble  in  natural  selection  soon  improving 
a species  and  transmuting  it  into  another 
form : — 

‘ ‘ livery  individual  of  every  animal  and  vegetable 
species  is  engaged  in  the  fiercest  competition  with 
every  other  individual  of  the  same  species  which 
lives  in  the  same  place  with  it." — HAECKEL , History 
of  Creation,  vol.  i.,  p.  163. 

Really,  to  suppose  that  this  author  did 
not  know  when  he  wrote  it  that  this  whole 
statement  was  pure  fiction  from  beginning 
to  end,  would  be  to  write  him  down  a 
scientific  idiot.  But,  as  Mr.  Darwin  insists 
that  Professor  Haeckel  has  brought  his 
“great  knowledge  and  abilities  to  bear” 
on  this  subjective  can  not  even  throw  the 
mantle  of  charity  over  it  as  the  result  of 
any  want  of  information.  Does  this  great 


naturalist  pretend  candidly  to  teach  us  that 
“every  individual”  of  a swarm  of  bees  “is 
engaged  in  the  fiercest  competition  with  every 
other  individual  of  the  same  species”?  He 
knows,  if  he  knows  anything  at  all  about 
natural  history  or  entomology,  that  there 
is  not  the  slightest  competition  among  these 
unselfish  and  harmonious  workers,  but  that 
all  unite  by  a division  of  labor  to  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  same  end.  This  is 
true,  also,  of  the  various  species  of  ants, 
which  work  in  the  most  perfect  order  and 
harmony  at  whatever  is  for  the  general 
good,  assisting  each  other  in  their  battles 
and  some  of  them  in  taking  care  of  their 
wounded, while  never  fighting  or  quarreling 
among  themselves.  Yet  this  learned  scien- 
tist assures  us,  after  bringing  “his  great 
knowledge  and  abilities  to  bear,”  that 
“every  individual”  ant  is  “ engaged  in  the 
fiercest  competition  with  every  other  individual 
of  the  same  species”! 

Pie  would  teach  us  that  the  millions  of 
mammal  mothers,  which  furnish  their  own 
substance  in  the  form  of  pabulum  to  nour- 
ish and  sustain  their  young  ones, and  would, 
in  many  instances,  sacrifice  their  own  lives 
to  defend  them  from  danger,  are  struggling 
with  those  same  young  ones  for  the  mastery 
and  “engaged  in  the  fiercest  competition ” 
with  them,  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  his 
language!  But  why  waste  time  with  such 
a reckless  scientific  latitudinarian  ? 

1 might  thus  go  on  and  fill  out  a whole 
chapter  with  just  such  examples  from  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel,  and  could  then  add  another 
chapter  with  similar  self-annihilating  pas- 
sages from  Mr.  Darwin, but  the  size  allotted 
to  the  book  forbids.  I therefore  leave  the 
question,  with  my  best  wishes  and  a kind 
adieu  to  the  reader. 


Telephone  and  Phonograph. 


523 


NOTE  ON  THE  TELEPHONE  AND  PHONOGRAPH. 


When  the  revised  chapters  on  Sound 
were  being  written,  the  telephone  was  but 
just  coining  into  general  notice,  and,  of 
course, was  but  partially  understood  by  any 
except  those  who  had  made  it  a special 
study.  Up  to  the  completion  of  the  vol- 
ume I had  not  had  an  opportunity  of  care- 
fully examining  this  remarkable  invention. 
Since  the  revision  of  the  work,  I have  had 
frequent  inquiries  from  friends  at  a dis- 
tance as  to  whether  the  telephone  does 
not  contravene  the  corpuscular  hypothesis 
of  sound,  as  assumed  in  this  treatise,  and 
go  to  favor  the  wave-theory,  as  held  by 
all  physicists.  To  meet  these  inquiries, 
I have  carefully  investigated  the  instru- 
ment,— one  of  Professor  Bell’s  improved 
telephones,  which  was  kindly  furnished  me 
by  Mr.  W.  K.  Applebaugh,  General  Super- 
intendent of  the  Telephone  Company  of 
New  York,  203  Broadway, — the  result  of 
which  I now  lay  before  the  reader. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  here  to  enter 
into  a detailed  description  of  the  instru- 
ment or  its  construction,  as  this  is  so  well 
understood,  having  been  repeatedly  ex- 
plained by  various  writers  in  a number  of 
different  scientific  publications.  A brief 
general  description,  however,  may  be  ne- 
cessary, in  order  to  properly  convey  my 
ideas  concerning  its  relation  to  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound. 

The  instrument  consists  of  a magnetized 
steel  bar,  about  three  eighths  of  an  inch 
in  diameter  and  five  inches  long,  wound 
at  one  end  with  fine  insulated  copper  wire, 
and  a circular  membrane  of  soft  iron  about 
two  inches  in  diameter  and  the  thickness 
of  common  writing-paper.  This  mem- 
brane is  secured  and  held  by  its  rim  in 
the  frame  of  the  instrument  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  leave  its  center  free  to  vi- 
brate by  the  least  possible  movement  of 


the  air  against  its  surface.  The  frame 
also  supports  a concave  mouth-piece,  with 
an  opening  in  its  center  for  the  purpose 
of  converging  the  atmospheric  disturbance 
upon  the  center  of  the  membrane  when 
talking  to  the  instrument. 

Now,  it  is  a fact  in  science,  but  one 
which  we  can  not  explain,  that  when  the 
ends  of  the  wire,  coiled  around  a perma- 
nent steel  magnet,  are  joined  together,  a 
current  of  electricity  is  generated  by  the 
magnetism ; and  it  is  also  a fact,  just  as 
inexplicable,  that  if  a piece  of  soft  iron  is 
brought  alternately  near  to  and  away  from 
the  end  of  such  bar,  it  affects  the  electric 
current  passing  through  the  wire  by  mak- 
ing it  alternately  weaker  and  stronger. 
These  two  facts  constitute  the  foundation 
of  the  Bell  telephone. 

It  will  now  be  readily  understood,  if  the 
membrane  of  soft  iron  should  be  secured 
in  the  frame  close  to  the  end  of  the  mag- 
netized bar  but  not  near  enough  to  touch 
it,  that  whenever  such  membrane  is  stirred 
in  the  slightest  degree,  either  by  the  mo- 
tion of  the  air  or  by  any  other  force,  it 
must  correspondingly  affect  the  electric 
current  of  the  wire  and  the  strength  of  the 
magnet  around  which  it  is  coiled;  and 
hence,  if,  in  talking  to  the  membrane 
through  the  mouth-piece,  we  cause  a dis- 
turbance of  the  air  which  vibrates  it,  mov- 
ing it  alternately  toward  and  from  the 
magnet,  it  is  plain  that  each  motion  to 
and  fro,  however  small,  is  represented  by 
a corresponding  weakening  or  strength- 
ening of  the  electric  current,  and  conse- 
quently of  the  attractive  power  of  the 
magnet. 

We  have  then  only  to  suppose  this  wire, 
before  its  ends  are  joined,  to  be  coiled 
around  another  steel  bar  in  another  tele- 
phone, exactly  the  same  (however  distant 


524 


Telephone  and  Phonograph. 


the  two  instruments  may  be  apart),  and  it 
is  evident  that  the  distant  magnet  will  be 
acted  on  by  the  electric  current,  and  alter- 
nately weakened  and  strengthened  in  all 
respects  the  same  as  the  first  one,  and  will 
in  turn  act  on  its  membrane  through  the 
law  of  attraction,  giving  it  exactly  the 
same  motions  of  the  transmitting  membrane 
whose  vibrations  manipulate  the  varying 
force  of  the  electric  current.  The  motions 
produced  by  the  air-waves  in  the  first  or 
transmitting  membrane  being  exactly  re- 
produced by  the  magnetic  bar  in  the  sec- 
ond or  receiving  membrane, it  is  plain  that 
these  latter  motions  will  necessarily  gen- 
erate exactly  the  same  tone  which  first 
gave  the  motion  to  the  former  membrane, 
through  the  aerial  waves  driven  against  it 
by  the  spoken  words. 

So  far  there  is  no  controversy  in  regard 
to  either  the  motions  or  their  effects, 
and  the  phenomena  here  explained  prove 
nothing  one  way  or  the  other  as  to  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  wave-theory,  as  I 
will  briefly  endeavor  to  show.  Through- 
out the  Evolution  of  Sound  it  has  been 
repeatedly  shown  that  the  vibrations  of 
any  sounding  body — the  human  vocal  ap- 
paratus as  well  as  other  instruments — cause 
a corresponding  succession  of  air-waves  to 
pass  off  for  a limited  distance  around,  but 
that  these  air-waves  are  only  an  incidental 
effect  of  the  motion  generating  the  sound, 
and  not,  by  any  means,  the  sound  itself. 
For  a circumscribed  distance  around  the 
sounding  body,  the  waves  — passing  off 
with  exactly  the  force  and  rapidity  of  the 
accompanying  sound-discharges — will,  of 
course,  by  impinging  upon  a sensitive 
membrane,  throw  it  into  forced  vibration, 
in  exact  conformity  to  the  original  vibra- 
tion which  generated  the  tone  and  the  ac- 
companying wave-motions  which  are  thus 
sent  off.  Such  forced  tremor  occurs 
whether  the  membrane  is  in  unison  with 
the  sounding  body  or  not,  but  can  not 
occur  outside  of  the  limited  distance  trav- 
ersed by  such  incidental  air-waves,  unless 
in  unison. 

In  this  way  it  was  shown  that  the  tym- 
panic membrane  might  be  caused  to  vi- 
brate by  loud  words  spoken  into  the  ear, 
or  close  by  it.  In  the  same  way,  as  I 
pointed  out  in  the  fifth  chapter,  the  whole 
external  ear,  as  well  as  the  fingers,  might 
be  thrown  into  vibratory  motion  by  the  air- 


waves of  a steam-whistle  in  close  prox- 
imity; but  such  forced  tremor,  though  cor- 
responding in  rapidity  to  the  vibrational 
number  of  the  sounding  body,  is  but  an 
incidental  or  coerced  effect  of  the  air-dis- 
turbance caused  by  the  same  vibratory 
motion  which  generates  the  tone,  though 
it  is  as  different  from  the  sound-pulse 
itself  as  is  the  compressed  air-wave  which 
destroys  buildings  at  a magazine  explosion 
different  from  the  accompanying  sound- 
pulse,  as  so  elaborately  illustrated  at  page 
103,  and  onward. 

As  a proof  that  sound  and  air-waves  are- 
two  separate  and  distinct  phenomena,  it  is 
evident  that  if  the  membrane  of  the  tele- 
phone could  be  moved  back  and  forth  by 
any  direct  mechanical  means  other  than 
air-waves,  such  as  a delicate  system  of 
levers,  acting  on  it  with  all  the  variety 
of  rapidity,  varying  amplitude,  and  force 
which  governs  its  motion  when  certain 
words  are  spoken  into  the  mouth-piece,  it 
would  produce  precisely  the  same  result 
on  the  varying  intensity  of  the  electric 
current  and  strength  of  the  magnet,  and 
consequently  would  reproduce  the  same 
variety  of  movement  in  the  membrane  of 
the  telephone  at  the  other  end  of  the  line, 
causing  the  words  to  be  repeated  there, 
alone  by  mechanical  means,  the  same  as 
if  they  had  been  originally  spoken  into 
the  mouth-piece  by  means  of  the  vocal 
organs. 

As  a proof  of  this,  we  have  only  to  look 
at  Mr.  Edison’s  astonishing  invention  of 
the  Phonograph,  which  actually  accom- 
plishes the  equivalent  of  what  I have  here 
described,  but  without  levers.  By  prop- 
erly attaching  a steel  point  to  the  center 
of  a telephone  membrane,  so  adjusted  as 
to  press  into  the  delicate  spiral  groove  of 
a revolving  cylinder  enwrapped  with  tin- 
foil,  the  vibration  of  the  membrane,  acted 
on  by  the  waves  accompanying  spoken 
words,  is  made  to  record  a corresponding 
variety  of  impressions  on  the  foil,  in  the 
form  of  delicate  indentations  of  varying 
depths  and  undulatory  lengths.  Then,  by 
re-revolving  the  c linder  in  the  same  direc- 
tion with  the  point  in  the  same  line  of  in- 
dentations, the  membrane  is,  of  course,  \ 
forced  through  the  same  variety  of  move- 
ments which  produced  the  record,  and  is 
thus  made  to  re-generate  the  original 
words  exactly  the  same  as  when  spoken ; 


Telephone  and  Phonograph. 


525 


and  this  same  thing  can,  of  course,  be 
done  any  number  of  times,  by  retaining 
the  foil  record,  and  at  any  future  dates 
desired,  thus  preserving  the  speech  of 
friends,  as  we  now  preserve  their  photo- 
graphs, for  future  generations. 

I have  not  the  least  doubt  but  that  the 
wonderful  mechanical  genius  of  an  Edison, 
a Gray,  or  a Bell,  can,  and  possibly  will, 
yet  produce  a purely  mechanical  means 
of  operating  on  such  a membrane  through 
some  kind  of  keyboard  and  levers,  by 
which  a deaf  and  dumb  person  may  learn 
to  talk  in  oral  words  by  the  manipulation 
of  keys,  the  same  as  he  might  learn  to 
play  a tune  on  the  piano  without  being 
able  to  hear  it.  I shall  not  be  at  all  as- 
tonished if  such  a device  should  be  an- 
nounced as  the  next  wonderful  production 
of  one  of  these  prolific  inventors.  For 
surely  if  a greatly  magnified  longitudinal 
sectional  view  of  the  line  of  indentations 
made  by  a phonograph-point  could  be 
taken,  it  would  form  the  basis  of  such 
mechanical  movements  as  would  lead  to 
proper  devices  for  a true  talking-machine, 
and  which  would  produce  exactly  the 
varied  motions  in  a membrane  necessary 
to  the  generation  of  spoken  words. 

The  marvelous  thing  about  the  tele- 
phone, however, — the  wonder  of  wonders, 
— is,  that  the  electric  current  passing 
through  the  wire  connecting  the  two  in- 
struments can  be  caused  to  vary  in  quan- 
tity and  force  so  sensitively,  and  with  that 
almost  infinite  nicety,  by  the  mere  tremor 
of  the  transmitting  membrane,  as  to  repro- 
duce this  exact  vibratory  movement  in  the 
receiving  membrane,  and  thus  re-generate 
the  same  tone!  No  one,  with  any  degree 
of  scientific  knowledge,  will  for  a moment 
suppose  that  the  sound  passes  through  the 
whole  length  of  the  wire  from  one  instru- 
ment to  the  other  when  hundreds  of  miles 
apart,  or  that  any  motion  corresponding 
to  the  vibration  of  the  transmitting  mem- 
brane can  take  place  in  the  wire,  save 
that  of  the  varying  quantity  and  strength 
of  the  electric  fluid.  No  conceivable  or 
possible  tremor  can  be  supposed  to  take 
place  in  the  copper  wire  itself,  nor  is  it 
necessary  for  any  such  motion,  any  more 
than  that  the  supposed  luminiferous  ether- 
waves  passing  through  a diamond  should 
displace  and  undulate  the  texture  of  that 
adamantine  substance.  Then,  if  the  wire 


remains  quiescent  in  the  passage  of  the 
electric  fluid,  there  is  no  wave-motion  at 
all  taking  place  between  the  two  instru- 
ments; but  the  substantial  current  of 
electricity  takes  up  the  substantial  sound- 
pulses  of  the  vocal  organs,  and  by  repro- 
ducing the  original  motions  at  the  other 
end  of  the  line,  re-generates  the  original 
tones. 

I submit,  then,  that  the  fact  of  a sound- 
movement,  such  as  that  of  spoken  words, 
producing  a limited  and  incidental  effect 
upon  the  surrounding  air  in  the  form  of 
waves,  and  thus  causing  a corresponding 
motion  in  a sensitive  membrane  such  as 
that  employed  in  the  telephone,  is  in  per- 
fect accordance  with  the  corpuscular  hy- 
pothesis of  sound,  as  maintained  in  this 
work;  and  does  not,  in  the  remotest  de- 
gree, go  to  favor  the  monstrous  but  un- 
avoidable assumption  of  the  wave-theory 
that  a mere  insect,  by  the  motion  of  its 
legs,  exerts  a mechanical  force  upon  four 
cubic  miles  of  air  sufficient  to  oscillate 
two  thousand  million  tons  of  tympanic 
membranes,  if  they  should  happen  to  be 
present,  as  it  must  absolutely  do  if  the 
wave-theory  has  any  foundation  in  science. 
(See  page  175,  and  onward.) 

But  it  is  urged  that,  in  the  body  of  this 
work,  I have  under-estimated  the  distance 
around  a sounding  body  to  which  its  air- 
waves will  travel,  as  shown  bv  recent  ex- 
periments with  the  improved  carbon  tele- 
phones of  Mr.  Edison  and  Prof.  Hughes, 
since  words  spoken  a hundred  or  more 
feet  away  from  the  transmitting  device 
have  been  conveyed  through  the  electric 
wire  and  reproduced  at  the  receiver.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  this  is  done 
by  air-waves,  or  that  no  effect  can  be  pro- 
duced by  sound  itself  acting  on  the  elec- 
tric current  of  these  telephones,  except 
through  the  mechanical  vibrations  of  the 
membrane  or  other  transmitting  device,  as 
will  soon  appear.  But  even  granting  that 
I have  under-estimated  this  distance,  and 
that  these  air-waves  may  really  travel  hun- 
dreds of  feet  from  the  sounding  body,  is 
it  not  still  far  more  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  such  waves  are  but  an  incidental  dis- 
turbance of  the  air  instead  of  constituting 
the  sound  itself,  rather  than  to  assume,  as 
the  wave-theory  compels  us  to  do,  that  an 
insect  is  actually  capable  of  exerting  the 
inconceivable  mechanical  force  just  inti- 


526 


Telephone  and  Phonograph. 


mated?  One  or  the  other  of  these  views 
is  clearly  unavoidable. 

There  is  absolutely  no  imaginable  limit 
to  the  tenuity  of  substance,  as  witness  the 
so-called  luminiferous  ether , while  there  is 
a clearly  and  abruptly  defined  limit  to  the  ex- 
ertion of  mechanical  force , determined  solely 
by  the  physical  strength  of  the  being  which 
acts.  (See  argument  on  the  tenuity  of 
odor,  page  134.)  Hence,  while  we  posi- 
tively know  that  an  insect  can  not  displace 
or  stir  a single  ton  ot  ponderable  matter 
(to  say  nothing  of  shaking  tiuo  thousand 
million  tons , as  required  by  the  wave- 
theory),  we  confessedly  do  not  know  but 
that  a locust  might  surcharge  a hundred 
cubic  miles  of  air  with  some  kind  of  sub- 
stantial pulses  without  appreciably  re- 
ducing its  own  weight,  since  the  tenuity 
of  substance,  as  all  science  admits,  is  with- 
out conceivable  limit.  Does  not  this,  of 
itself,  point  with  infallible  certainty  to  the 
corpuscular  hypothesis  of  sound,  rather 
than  to  the  infinitely  impracticable  as- 
sumption of  wave-motion?  And  does  it 
not,  therefore,  devolve  upon  physicists  to 
seek  some  other  explanation  of  these  tele- 
phonic mysteries,  instead  of  trying  to  force 
them  into  the  service  of  a theory  involving 
such  stupendous  impossibilities  as  those 
just  alluded  to  ? 

From  the  marvelously  delicate  effect 
developed  by  Prof.  Hughes’  instrument,  by 
which  the  step  of  a fly  can  be  heard  through 
the  electric  wire  miles  away , it  seems  highly 
probable,  if  not  absolutely  certain,  that 
the  physical  oscillations  of  the  transmitting 
device  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  but 
that,  instead  of  air-waves  sent  off  from  a 
fly’s  foot  producing  such  a result,  the  sub- 
stantial sound-pulse  itself,  thus  generated, 
acts  directly  upon  the  electric  fluid  of  the 
wire  through  the  carbon  or  other  materials 
of  the  transmitter.  I strongly  suspected, 
and  even  urged  when  writing  this  work, 
that  the  so-called  correlation  of  forces 
would  turn  out  to  be  a correlation  of  sub- 
stantial emanations;  and  thus  that  sound- 
pulses,  light-emissions,  heat-radiations, 
electric  currents,  &c.,  would  be  found  to 
sustain  such  a mutual  relation  to,  or  affin- 
ity for,  each  other,  that  by  mingling  in 
certain  ways  they  could  act  upon  and 
modify  the  effects  of  each  other. 

Many  experiments  have  shown  that 
light,  as  well  as  heat,  affects  the  electric 


condition  of  bodies, — electricity  in  turn 
being  convertible  into  light,  heat,  and 
sound;  while  heat  is  well  known  to  act 
directly  on  sonorous  pulses,  rapidly  in- 
creasing their  velocity  up  to  a certain  de- 
gree, and  then  decreasing  it.  What,  then, 
should  hinder  the  effect  here  intimated,  of 
substantial  sound-pulses  acting  upon  the 
substantial  electric  current,  aided  by  suit- 
able mechanical  or  chemical  appliances? 

These  sensitive  telephonic  effects  would 
seem  fully  to  corroborate  such  a substan- 
tial correlation,  rather  than  go  to  support 
the  view  that  air-waves,  sent  off  by  the 
movement  of  a fly’s  foot,  could , by  any  pos- 
sibility, exert  sufficient  physical  force  to  al- 
ternately compress  and  expand  a solid  glass 
tube  or  a stick  of  carbon,  and  in  this  man- 
ner alternately  strengthen  and  weaken  the 
electric  current  passing  through  the  wire! 
As  well  might  we  expect  to  alternately 
compress  and  expand  Chimborazo,  by 
whistling  at  it  a mile  away  from  its  rocky 
base. 

Everything  tends  to  favor  the  opinion 
now  being  formed  by  able  scientific  think- 
ers that  something  more  than  mechanical 
air-waves  is  necessary  to  produce  the  in- 
finitely delicate  effects  generated  at  the 
transmitting  device  of  a carbon  telephone, 
or  microphone , as  it  is  sometimes  called. 
No  thought  so  readily  and  rationally 
comes  to  our  aid  as  the  corpuscular  hy- 
pothesis of  sound,  in  connection  with  this 
law  of  correlation  and  the  interconverti- 
bility of  the  so-called  forces  of  Nature, — 
thus  teaching  us  that  the  substantial 
sound-pulse  itself, impinging  upon  the  sub- 
stance of  the  electric  fluid  through  the 
sensitive  unhomogeneous  substances  of 
these  telephones,  generates  a tremor  in 
the  electric  current  corresponding  to  its 
own  vibrational  number. 

Some  of  our  greatest  physical  investiga- 
tors do  not  hesitate  to  claim  that  even  the 
more  delicate  telephonic  effects  produced 
through  the  Bell  diaphragm  can  not  be 
attributed  to  its  mechanical  or  bodily  vi- 
brations toward  and  from  the  pole  of  the 
magnetized  bar.  The  eminent  Scotch 
physicist,  R.  M.  Ferguson,  Ph.D.,  F.R.S.E., 
distinctly  takes  this  position  in  a lecture 
on  the  telephone  recently  delivered  be- 
fore the  Royal  Scottish  Society  of  Arts,  as 
copied  into  the  Scientific  American  Supple- 
ment, No.  120. 


Telephone  and  Phonograph. 


527 


Dr.  Ferguson  shows,  by  the  most  convincing  ar- 
guments, that  the  mechanical  oscillation  of  this 
iron  disk  is  wholly  insufficient  to  account  for  some 
of  the  effects  produced  in  the  transmission  of  ar- 
ticulate speech;  though  he  admits  that  these  bodily 
movements  of  the  membrane  produced  by  air-waves 
from  a sounding  body  in  close  proximity  add  to  the 
loudness  and  distinctness  of  the  message.  As  a 
proof  that  but  a portion  of  these  effects  can  come 
from  the  vibratory  motion  of  the  transmitting  mem- 
brane, he  notes  the  fact  that  a solid  iron  plate,  an 
inch  thick , in  place  of  the  membrane,  has  produced 
distinct  transmissions  of  speech,  and  that  even  the 
naked  end  of  the  magnetized  bar  has  done  the  same 
thing  without  the  intervention  of  any  kind  of  dia- 
phragm or  plate.  What  clearer  evidence  could  be 
asked  in  favor  of  the  position  just  assumed  of  an 
actual  correlation  existing  between  the  substantial 
sound-pulse  itself  and  the  electric  fluid  of  the  mag- 
net? In  speaking  of  the  common  explanation  of  the 
telephone,  as  given  by  all  writers  on  the  subject, — 
that  is,  that  the  transmission  of  speech  depends 
entirely  upon  the  mechanical  vibration  of  the  trans- 
mitting membrane, — the  Doctor  remarks: — 

“This  explanation  is  beautiful  and  simple,  and 
one  would  wish  it  true;  it  must  always  remain  the 
popular  one.  Undoubtedly,  however,  when  nar- 
rowly examined  it  is  found  to  be  a mere  hypothesis, 
and  to  have  as  yet  no  experimental  confirmation. 
...  I would,  in  the  first  place,  take  exception  to 
the  vibratory  theory  of  Bell,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  vi- 
brations of  the  disk  to  and  from  the  pole  of  the 
magnet,  in  excursions  proportionate  to  the  intensity , 
pitch, and  quality  of  the  vocal  sounds, that  electrically 
affect  the  instrument;  and  in  so  doing  I only  ex- 
press the  dissatisfaction  with  it  of  almost  every  one 
who  deals  with  the  telephone.  The  mere  vibrations 
of  the  iron  disk  are  insufficient  to  account  for  its 
action.  ” 

If,  then,  the  mechanical  motions  to  and  fro  of 
the  membrane  fail  to  account  for  these  telephonic 
effects,  I submit  that  the  mechanical  air-waves 
which  cause  such  vibrations  must  also  fail.  Is  it 
logical  or  reasonable  to  reject  the  vibratory  motion 
of  the  sending  membrane  as  a sufficient  cause  of 
transmitted  speech  through  an  electric  wire,  and 
still  cling  to  the  wave-theory,  on  which  alone  such 
defective  explanation  of  the  telephone  depends? 
Yet,  strange  as  it  seems,  after  Dr.  Ferguson  had 
made  such  an  important  advance,  discarding  the 
possibility  of  mechanical  vibrations  as  a sufficient 
cause  of  these  telephonic  effects,  he  still  persists 
in  holding  to"  the  wave-theory,  and  is  unable  to 
take  the  one  short  remaining  step  which  would 
have  led  him  directly  to  the  corpuscular  hypothesis, 
and  thus  have  completely  solved  the  problems  he 
was  discussing!  Instead  of  this  simple  mode  of 
cutting  the  gordian  knot,  he  submits  an  explanation 
immeasurably  more  difficult  to  accept  than  the  one 
he  controverts,  namely,  that  the  mechanical  air- 
waves sent  off  from  a sounding  body,  even  though 
they  are  too  feeble  to  cause  the  least  vibratory 
motion  of  a thin  membrane,  are  nevertheless  pow- 
erful enough  to  act  upon  the  tissue  and  fiber  of  the 
magnet,  driving  its  metallic  molecules  into  undu- 
lations, thus  literally  displacing  the  atoms  of  the 


steel  bar  itself.  These  old-fashioned,  theoretic 
air-waves,  it  seems,  according  to  this  high  author- 
ity, are  not  capable,  especially  when  weak,  of  stir- 
ring this  membrane  mechanically,  as  he  clearly 
demonstrates  by  substituting  an  iron  plate  an  inch 
thick,  yet  they  are  strong  enough  to  churn  its  ma- 
terial particles  into  condensations  and  rarefactions! 
He  holds  that  the  molecules,  which  are  simply  the 
smallest  particles  of  the  iron,  are  actually  displaced, 
and  caused  to  change  in  their  relative  position  to 
each  other  by  the  action  of  “external  sounds, "and 
that  this  sonorous  contact  generates  currents  of  elec- 
tricity. Speaking  of  the  office  of  the  Bell  mem- 
brane, he  says: — 

“It  is  an  acoustic  instrument  sui generis,  and  its 
smallness  seems  to  point  to  molecular  as  well  as 
vibratory  action.  . . . Sound  acts  on  iron  so  as  to 
produce  molecular  changes,  the  electric  power  of 
which  is  much  enhanced  by  the  vibration  of  the 
sounding  body.  ...  I have  endeavored  to  prove 
that  in  future  books  of  science  Bell’s  discoveries 
will  be  given  as  twofold:  first,  having  devised  per- 
haps the  best  way  of  developing  magnetic  sounds 
in  iron ; and  second,  of  showing  that  the  condition 
produced  in  iron  by  external  sounds  results  in  elec- 
tricity. ” 

Now,  if  “external  sounds”  can  actually  produce 
electricity  in  a steel  bar  or  in  the  iron  disk  of  a 
telephone  as  well  as  vibratory  motion,  it  is  plain 
that  sound  must  be  something  more  than  mechan- 
ical air-waves.  This  view  is  fully  confirmed  by 
Mr.  Edison  himself.  He  says: — 

“I  discovered  that  my  principle  [the  alternate 
compression  and  expansion  of  carbon  by  sound- 
waves], unlike  all  other  acoustical  devices  for  the 
transmission  of  speech,  did  not  require  any  vibra- 
tion of  the  diaphragm.  That,  in  fact,  sound-waves 
could  be  transformed  into  electrical  pulses  without 
the  movement  of  any  intervening  mechanism.” — 
Prescott's  work  on  the  Telephone,  p.  226. 

Thus  the  inventor  of  the  carbon  telephone  and 
the  phonograph  supports  the  law  of  correlation  and 
interconvertibility  as  here  urged,  and  in  doing  it 
he  overthrows  his  own  assumption  of  the  alternate 
compression  and  expansion  of  a lump  of  carbon  by 
the  action  of  air-waves,  since  that  would  evidently 
be  an  “intervening  mechanism,” as  much  so  as  the 
alternate  elongation  and  contraction  of  an  india- 
rubber  cord,  or  the  vibratory  movement  of  a Bell 
membrane.  This  position  is  also  fatal  to  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound,  as  it  is  clear  that  simple  aerial 
undulations  can  not  be  “transformed  into  electrical 
pulsations”  or  into  any  thing  else  except  air  in  a 
quiescent  state.  Hence,  sound  must  be  something 
more  than  air-waves. 

I submit,  therefore,  to  the  reader  if  the  tendency 
of  scientific  investigation  is  not  in  a direct  line  to- 
ward the  corpuscular  hypothesis,  for  the  first  time 
formularized,  or  even  hinted,  in  this  monograph; 
and  if  the  researches  and  distinct  announcements 
of  these  eminent  authorities,  as  just  quoted,  which 
so  clearly  show  that  something  besides  mechanical 
vibration  or  “the  movement  of  any  intervening 
mechanism”  is  necessary  to  account  for  telephonic 
effects,  do  not  as  clearly  dispense  with  the  wave- 
theory  of  sound. 


THE 


PROBLEM  OF  HUMAN  LIFE 


This  is  a large  royal  octavo  volume  of  between  five  and  six  hundred  double 
column  pages,  containing  a popular  and  original  discussion  of  some  of  the  leading 
and  most  important  scientific  questions  of  the  day,  of  which  the  accompanying 
synopsis  of  contents  will  give  a condensed  outline. 

The  arguments  advanced  by  the  author,  in  the  last  four  chapters  of  the  book, 
against  the  rapidly  spreading  doctrines  of  Evolution,  are  not  only  new  but  completely 
overwhelming;  while  the  novel  hypothesis  of  Sound,  and  the  scathing  review  of  the 
old  theory  as  well  as  of  some  of  its  most  popular  exponents,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth 
chapters  (over  two  hundred  pages),  constitute  a feature  of  modern  scientific  research 
which  no  student  of  science  can  afford  to  be  without. 

The  portraits  of  the  six  great  scientists  reviewed  by  the  author  are  given  as  a 
frontispiece  in  each  edition  of  the  work,  whether  complete  or  in  separate  parts. 
These  portraits  are  accurate  likenesses,  engraved  from  life-photographs,  and  meet 
a decided  want. 

“THE  PROBLEM  OF  HUMAN  LIFE,” 

complete,  containing  the  eleven  chapters,  elegantly  bound  in  gilt  morocco  cloth,  will 


be  sent  post-paid  on  receipt  of  the  price, $3.00 

The  same  work,  complete  (cheaper  edition), 2.00 

“THE  EVOLUTION  OF  SOUND,” 1.00 

“EVOLUTION  EVOLVED,”  (last  four  chapters,) 1.00 


Any  person  who  will  return  to  the  publishers  a copy  of  “ The  Evolution  of 
Sound”  or  “Evolution  Evolved,”  with  one  dollar , will  receive  the  complete 
work  (eleven  chapters)  by  return  mail,  postage  paid. 

This  massive  and  beautifully  bound  work  is  well  adapted  to  canvassers,  as  a 
subscription-book,  to  whom  we  hold  out  inducements  never  before  offered  by  any 
publisher.  Competent  and  reliable  agents  will,  in  addition  to  an  extraordinary  per- 
centage, receive  an  elegantly  bound  specimen  copy  of  the  book  to  canvass  with, 
free  of  charge. 

Persons  desirous  of  negotiating  for  the  sale  of  this  work,  by  subscription,  will 
receive  a circular  containing  terms,  on  addressing  the  publishers  to  that  effect. 

HALL  & CO.,  Publishers, 

234  Broadway,  New  York. 


